Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith

http://www.lneilsmith.org/

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?

While a politician being in favor of gun rights isn't the only issue I look at, if that is missing, they won't get my vote either.

Great post. It's probably the best article on the subject I've read. Thanks.

+1

Must be a Vulcan mind-meld Ramoel

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!!

Brilliant! I'd quote from it in my reply, but I'd just be quoting the whole piece. Fantastic article. I'm strongly tempted to print and frame that, and place it on the wall next to the Bill of Rights that hangs in my home...

2A: The only true and real litmus test in politics. It just makes it so easy.

And, for the first time in ages, we actually have a man to elect who is fit for public office. Before us is the once in a lifetime opportunity to choose a true statesman for the executive office of the country. I'm excited!

!!! RON PAUL 2008 !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZXM3h4jig

(This link is a thrilling ten minutes. All who have the time, I thoroughly encourage you to watch. There's even a portion in there about airport carry! If anyone can direct me to another individual whom they've ever heard speak with this kind of fire and conviction about this country's principles, I'd love to watch that as well; please offer me a link.)

Great article. The guy must be able to read my mind.

It's hard to 'diss WI sportsmen when they vote for Doyle, if we ourselves turn around and vote for Guiliani or someone like him. May we all have the strength to value our principles the way they deserve.

I asked this very question of Joe Muellery once. He refused to answer. His Texas two-step is very nice.

In a perfect world I'm sure this litmus test makes sense but it's not a perfect world. Do I think everyone should be able to possess a handgun? Nope. This is one time I don’t mind being held to a higher standard. Do I have the constitutional right to own a handgun? Well, I have the right to “bare arms” but I think the current society we live in gets to determine what that means. Sporting rifles and shotguns? Sure. Handguns? I think yes with conditions. Automatic weapons? I’d make it pretty hard to get one (but they sure are cool). Antitank missiles? Not a chance. I’ll go out on a limb and assume the framers wouldn’t have wanted a well-armed populace to have quad .50s mounted on their H2s

I think it’s reasonable to expect that the owner of a handgun should have some sort of working knowledge of that firearm. I think it’s reasonable that society would like to know if you’re crazy or if you could pass a criminal background check before you take your handgun home. I think it’s reasonable that if you want to carry your firearm, you need to take a class and make a commitment through money and time that you are responsible enough to carry that firearm. I think it’s reasonable to expect society to allow ‘’average citizens’’ to carry a handgun without jumping through too many hoops. Society may not like it, but if you jump through the reasonable hoops, you get to carry.

But that’s just what I think.

I think you are absolutely wrong. The framers put the 2nd amendment in place as a precaution against government tyranny. They, IMHO, would want the population to have anything and everything available to the government.

Do I think that's a good idea? I'd have a tough time saying civilians have a right to own nukes.

So, you don't think this would be a good idea for civilians? God, I love this gun!

[/img]

+1

That's a very shaky limb you're out on. The framers (and the population in general, I might add) certainly did not want government more well armed than the people.

I know it. This starts getting into my feelings. I'd be uncomfortable with any one person being able to trigger TEOTWAWKI, but I'm also uncomfortable with any government being able to do the same.

So far this is a fine discussion. No flames, off the wall rants or name calling. I'll disagree that the population in general does not want the government better armed than the people. The military exists to protect the people/society (our way of life) and it therefore must be more well armed than any other people or society that wishes to do us harm.

Being an ex-military guy, I know that a strong military is a must for the defense of our way of life and that defense needs aircraft carriers, tanks, fighter jets, technology, etc. which costs lots and lots of money. Those ''arms'' are not feasible for ''the people'' to have because the $ costs are prohibitive.

If the argument is ‘’the people’’ have the right to ‘’keep and bear arms'' similar to those the government has, then we all better start being really nice to the rich people. Taking that argument further, if the people and the govt should be equally ''armed'', if the people can't afford a helicopter gunship, then the govt shouldn't have one either?

Back to the topic at hand. A litmus test of ''Does this candidate think any person should be able to buy/own/carry any weapon of their choosing without any type government interference or regulation?’’ is one way to vote. It’s just not the way I will do it. And yes, I do own a handgun. I do have a CCW permit. And I do vote.

What I meant by that post was the population in the late 1700's, circa the Founding Documents.

I too agree that today's population (in general, as a whole) is just the opposite. They prefer ".gov" and it's JBT's better armed than the people. Indeed (and ironically), not only is that a preference, but a genuine demand.

However, as for me and my house, it is just the opposite. You'll not hear any of that.