I just love the irony of being on the VPC website.
Posted on 08/02/2009 5:26:19 AM PDT by marktwain
Earlier in July, the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann – writing on the Huffington Post website – made what had to be one of the more bone-headed attempts in recent memory to drive a wedge between people in the firearms community when he critiqued remarks written by Jan Libourel, editor of Gun World magazine.
Libourel is an extraordinarily bright guy, well-read in every sense, and – as is common among gun writers – unabashedly opinionated. As a recognized firearms authority, he’s supposed to be opinionated. That’s his job, and he is very good at it. Gun owners enjoy those opinions, even if they don’t always agree with them; it’s a “First Amendment thing.” Evidently, Sugarmann doesn’t get this; not at all surprising since people in the gun prohibition (it’s never been about “control” of guns, but banning them altogether and those guys know it) movement do not seem to “get” much about anything.
Sugarmann tried to exploit something Libourel wrote about semiautomatic rifles, suggesting that his remarks could land him in the same hot water as legendary hunting authority Jim Zumbo a couple of years back. Zumbo said something foolish about AR-15 rifles which he quickly regretted and retracted, turned into a learning experience and ultimately a personal triumph. Zumbo is a friend of mine, and he gained in stature because of his gaffe. I thought his initial criticism of the AR-15 was off base and he knows it, but today Zumbo is one of the last guys in the universe with whom I would wish to tangle on the issue of gun rights, to say nothing of individual character.
Now comes Libourel with this remark, “Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws.” Sugarmann landed on that like a fly on cow dung – possibly with the same intent and motivation – asserting that “a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose ‘some sort of gun control laws.’ In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws’.”
No, Josh, they oppose your sort of gun laws; you know, licensing, registration, Draconian storage requirements, retroactive disqualification, mandatory locking devices, bans on legal concealed or open carry, bans on certain types and classes of firearms, confusing paperwork, contradictory language, yadda, yadda, yadda. All of the nonsense that gun owners know has never prevented a single violent criminal act.
Murder is against the law, but people keep doing it, with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, rocks, poison, you name it.
I have yet to meet a gun owner, including the most rabid gun rights extremist (some people use that phrase to describe me!) who opposes keeping guns away from illegal aliens, violent convicted felons – rapists, murderers, bank robbers, etc. – or people who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent.
Sugarmann would have the world believe all of these misfits and average American gun owners are one and the same.
You know, the heavily-armed guy who in his grandiose dreams is linked to a heritage that stretches from the Revolutionary War to the Wolverines of Red Dawn -- and is only seen by the rest of us when he snaps and his last "patriotic" act ends up on the evening news. - Josh Sugarmann
Gun owners would support a law requiring mandatory firearms safety training as part of the public school curriculum, and another law restoring high school rifle teams. Sugarmann’s crowd would oppose such laws. Their idea of “gun safety” is promoting an irrational fear of firearms, in the home, the classroom, on public property and in all business establishments. That hasn't worked.
Gun owners supported a sensible federal proposal that would have required states to honor one another's concealed carry licenses and permits, but Sugarmann's VPC opposed it.
Indeed, when it comes to gun laws, it is the firearms community, not prohibitionists like Sugarmann, who have supported – and demanded adherence to – the ultimate federal gun law, the Second Amendment; prohibitionists want that repealed, not us.
Elsewhere in his Gun World column, Libourel made some remarks about people who had rushed to gun shops since the 2008 elections, buying up AR-15 rifles. I’ve written about that phenomenon in Gun Week. It falls under what we call in the news trade as "fair comment" and is protected by the First Amendment. That's the one that comes right before the Second Amendment.
Sugarmann suggests that Libourel was demonizing these people and the guns they bought, because Jan is self-admittedly an “old fashioned” guy who prefers a “a plain old short-barreled 12 gauge pump gun or autoloader (as) all the urban defense gun I’d ever need.”
Josh, this will come as a life-altering shock, I’m certain: Not everyone in the gun community shares the same lockstep affection for every type of firearm. We’re “rugged individualists” in that sense. I don’t own an AR-15. They’re fun to shoot, some are remarkably accurate, but they simply don’t interest me enough to invest the money, same as a sports car may be fun to drive, but I own a pickup. My pals who are AR-15 aficionados joke that they love me for not owning one of these rifles, contending that “it leaves one more for us to buy.” You’re welcome!
Now, here’s the major difference between guys like Sugarmann, and guys like me and Libourel. We don’t care if our neighbor owns a house full of AR-15s. We don’t consider it any of our business what kind of gun our neighbor owns. Josh should take a lesson from that.
Sugarmann suggested that Libourel’s remarks just might get him banished from the gun community. What is he smoking?
Libourel is a cornerstone of the gun community, and the gun community knows it. He’s not going to get exiled. Now that he’s been singled out by Sugarmann, he’s probably going to get a medal.
Here is the ultimate truth about the gun-banning idiots and freedom. At heart, gun-banners are just authoritarians trying to boost their own power. They could care less about freedom (other than their own, of course).
I don't know what the guy who wrote this was smoking, but he has a really strange definition of "gained stature" if he really thinks that this is true. Dumbo just gave a very visible example that the hunter types for the most part don't really care about gun rights as long as they get to keep THEIR guns. Likewise Libourel should really watch what he says too.
I just love the irony of being on the VPC website.
Trying to make lemonade out of lemons to claim that Zumbo “gained stature.”
He’s lucky he still has a job in the industry after that fiasco.
Congratulations!
That’s me, circa 1982. No, I am not catching the brass in my mouth.
Yes, he did gain in stature because he publicly apologized, and started working hard to repair the damage that he had done. I give Zumbo a lot of credit for that. He is as staunch a zealot for the Second Amendment as we could ask for, now that his eyes have been opened by the education that he recieved after his thoughtless remark was turned into ammunition against the Second Amendment by the anti-freedom types.
Gun World? What’s their circulation these days? 100-200?
That reminds me, it’s time to read aonther 9mm vs. .38 Special article...
:)
Actually, that would be a pretty cool trick.
Fire, catch, sizzzzzz, spit.
Heck, Clint Eastwood would be proud of that one.
:-)
At the risk of being banned from the gun community forever, I'll take a stab at not being a madman:
The Secret Service is prohibited from using any type of firearm to protect the President not available for legal ownership to the general public at that location.
Because they cross State borders on their job, Federal Law Enforcement Officers are restricted to use of only those firearms that are legal in every state.
ANY given example of microstamping, "smart guns" or similar unproved technology must be tested and accepted by the military, state, AND federal law enforcement agencies for 20 years without modification prior to being mandated for any private citizen. If the technology requires alteration in the course of the 20-year acceptance period (as, say, a result of malfunction or of design change) the 20-year clock starts anew.
There: some reasonable, modest, common-sense gun control laws - that I would support!
Sugarman has been doing this crap for YEARS. And every time he pops up, those of us who understand that the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting and target shooting rise up to slap him down.
Memo to Josh: As a JEW, you need to go back and study the sad, sad lessons of your European ancestors. Oh wait — most of them DIED in Hitler’s camps — AFTER HE DISARMED THEM!
never mind!
DISARMED JEWS AND THE HOLOCAUST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg9q9sxJFnA
WHY DO THEY WANT OUR GUNS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
NOWHERE TO HIDE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvqb_JcAK18
Yet another reasonable, modest, common-sense gun control law that I would wholly support.
More like trying to make lemonade out of dog squeeze.
He’s lucky he still has a job in the industry after that fiasco.
I agree.
Not true. Evidence - when Reagan was shot the SS produced a number of mini-UZIs. These were not at the time and are not available to the general public in Wash DC
>I have yet to meet a gun owner, including the most rabid gun rights extremist (some people use that phrase to describe me!) who opposes keeping guns away from illegal aliens, violent convicted felons
I do! I think that a convicted felon who has served his sentence STILL has a right to self defense. The “illegal alien” thing is a bit different... that’s more like an unconvicted felon than someone who has paid their debt to society.
That said, I believe that Murder and Rape SHOULD be capitally punished.
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.