Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Guns?
L. Neil Smith's Webley Page ^ | L. Neil Smith

Posted on 05/29/2003 9:23:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 next last

1 posted on 05/29/2003 9:23:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
2 posted on 05/29/2003 9:24:33 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: enfield
a politician's contempt for the second amendent is probably equal to his contempt of you or me.

A perfect and succinct summation of the article.

4 posted on 05/29/2003 10:30:15 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
You can't see it but I am giving you a standing ovation!
5 posted on 05/29/2003 10:47:13 PM PDT by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Check out the author's list of Lever Action Essays for some encores.
6 posted on 05/29/2003 11:06:52 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: enfield
"...a politician's contempt for the second amendent is probably equal to his contempt of you or me."

Yep, it sure tells you a lot about the 'man', doesn't it.

7 posted on 05/29/2003 11:12:15 PM PDT by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Good article! Thanks for posting.
8 posted on 05/30/2003 4:26:49 AM PDT by Mulder (Live Free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Neil Smith, sometimes tiresome and excessively longwinded, is dead on target here.

Some bright fellow once said "Man has only those rights he can defend." If this be true -- and I think it is -- what does it say about those who would deprive us of the means of defense in the name of "the greater good"? For that matter, what does it say about "the greater good"?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

9 posted on 05/30/2003 4:33:37 AM PDT by fporretto (Curmudgeon Emeritus, Palace of Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fporretto
Excellent line of reasoning. I intend to try it out on some folks today.
10 posted on 05/30/2003 4:34:41 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (A bad day FReepin' beats a good day workin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: enfield
Never really thought of it this way before, but a politician's contempt for the second amendent is probably equal to his contempt of you or me.

I have always thought of it this way, and as recently as five years ago was considered extremely radical because of it. Mostly by supposed RKBA supporters and NRA members With its compromises and capitulations "for the greater good" the NRA is part of the problem, not the solution).

When it comes to voting I am a sigle issue voter. This issue is the litmus test! There is nothing else I need to know about a pol running for office.

Unfortunately it forces me to hold 95% of politicians in utter contempt.

Suijuris

11 posted on 05/30/2003 4:46:48 AM PDT by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Yes.

Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

No doubt!

One issue, one vote. Do I have an inalienable right to defend myself ... or not?

12 posted on 05/30/2003 7:07:06 AM PDT by TigersEye ( The Democrats are sooooo 9/10.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: suijuris
The NRA doesn't make laws. They can only lobby for laws.

They also represent only 5% of the gun owners of this country.

In spite of the media claiming the NRA are extremists and gun owners who are not members claiming they don't do anything, It was the NRA that stopped the gun laws that were happening for the last forty years while the other gun groups were too small to be effective. The Brady Bill is a failure to ALL gun groups and not just the NRA. The Bill was originally a fifteen day waiting period. It was "compromised" to an instant check.

The only way you can judge how well the NRA acts is by reading an article from Fortune magazine that put the NRA as America's top lobbying group.
13 posted on 05/30/2003 8:21:06 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: suijuris
"Unfortunately it forces me to hold 95% of politicians in utter contempt.

Oddly enough, that's the same percentage of gun owners who sit on the sidelines and do nothing who have earned my contempt.

14 posted on 05/30/2003 8:24:18 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
BTTT
15 posted on 05/30/2003 9:02:53 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Do I have an inalienable right to defend myself ... or not?

You certainly do, no matter what the current laws are. No one can ever take away that right.

16 posted on 05/30/2003 11:06:07 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
you've got my mojo risin' in admiration that is... well said and likely believed...

if i were a politician, i would have no problem speaking in front of an armed audience...

as long as i was carrying too... or maybe three...

teeman8r
17 posted on 05/30/2003 5:12:18 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Good piece...
18 posted on 05/30/2003 5:15:53 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

BTTT
19 posted on 05/31/2003 10:53:25 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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