My dear sane people,
While we await the Supreme Court's decision on what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the Second Amendment, I thought it might be a good time to try to explain to those "law-abiding" and "emotionally stable" gun nuts we hear so much about—the ones who are always scheming to find more and more ridiculous ways to impress us with their firearms studliness—why we think it's a horrible, absurd idea for them to be toting concealed weapons onto our university campuses or into our state and federal parks, as it would seem many are itching to do.
I know, I know ... I'm wasting my time. Gun nuts are defined by their uncompromising nuttiness when it comes to guns. As sane people, we all understand this.
Still, with over 60,000 Americans being shot every year—12,000 of them to death—I feel an obligation to try. It's like spending a buck or two on Powerball tickets: nuh-uh, no way in hell do I seriously expect to win. But if I did win, it's only because I bought the ticket, yes? Same with trying to make sense about guns to gun nuts. Following me?
Ergo, every few months ... maybe once a year ... I give it another go. I can't just sit here and say nothing while these loony bastards keep coming up with new ways to demonstrate how nuts they are, especially since many of them are in a position to actually turn their fantasies into reality—e.g., state legislatures, Congress, etc. For example, I have learned (thanks to a recent report by Stephen Colbert) of a state legislator from Tennessee who wants to change the law in his state so that bar patrons can carry concealed weapons when they go out drinking. And isn't that just a marvelous idea ... saloon after saloon full of juiced-up rednecks packing pistols? I'll bet the night shift down at the Chattanooga police station can't wait for that to happen, huh?
That item, more so than the Supreme Court hearing, convinced me it was time to take another shot at this, if you'll pardon the expression. But it won't be politicians I will be addressing here. No, like most politicians, gun nut politicians set their sails to catch whatever they sense is the prevailing wind. And I'm painfully aware my opinion on concealed weaponry is not a prevailing wind, especially in environs like Idaho or Tennessee, where guns are often more important than healthy children, happy wives and well-fed dogs to certain segments of the population.
Besides, when a politician comes up with something as laughable as allowing guns in bars or on campuses, we know he's only out to establish himself as a reliable licker of the NRA's blood-soaked hand. It's not his convictions he's following, but the scent of money.
So my appeal today will be directly to those boys (and the occasional girl) who imagine themselves as secret heroes, saving some future day because they—and only they—had the good sense to tuck a loaded .38 into their belt on their way to English 101, or on their way down to Ye Olde Bingeing Hole for another evening of Coors, pool and posturing. Whether or not it does any good in terms of them joining us on the sane side, the least they can do is understand (to whatever degree they are capable) how we perceive them and their self-assessed claims of how qualified they are to be the nation's volunteer posse.
Possibly, I am overstepping in the use of "we" instead of sticking to "I," but were I to ask 100 people if they would want their college-aged child sitting in a lecture hall along with 10 or 15 young, armed males, any one of which might be far less emotionally stable than he considers himself to be ... or far less proficient at hitting what he's aiming at than he considers himself to be ... or flunking the course ... or having a girlfriend break up with him ... or having a crappy day ... or feeling small ... or wishing he were dead ... or wishing he were Vin Diesel ... or wishing one of the other secret heroes would pull out a gun and start shooting so he could start shooting back ... I have little doubt most would answer "no."
Same with our nation's parks: Would any of us feel better knowing that every camp trailer within 50 yards of our camp trailer had a loaded gun in the kitchenette, just in case one of us should turn out to be a crazed killer? And is the camper who's not the crazed killer qualified to recognize a crazed killer when he sees one? Before he opens fire, I mean. Or is it far more likely that eventually, two non-crazed killers would end up blowing each other's heads off (and possibly ours, too, should we be caught in the crossfire) because each of them was convinced the other was a crazed killer, possibly on no more basis than a loud boom box or a barking dog?
And as to guns in bars, just ask any bouncer how swell an idea that would be.
So I feel safe in using "we" because when sane people think about it—which necessarily involves some level of extrapolation as to how exponentially stupid a stupid idea can grow into over time—I am confident they would reach the same conclusion I have—that it's those people who consider more gun violence to be the solution to gun violence that we need to watch out for.
Really, crazed killers don't generally come from within the ranks of those who think there are too many guns in America, do they? No sir, crazed killers, along with those who see themselves surrounded by crazed killers, come from that community which is perpetually convincing itself there is no facet, no realm, no corner of human experience that wouldn't benefit from having a gun within easy reach. And there is a mighty thin line between someone who thinks he can be a hero—if only he had a gun—and someone who thinks he can just be somebody—if only he had a gun.
In closing, I must apologize for overusing the common collective "gun nuts." I realize that writers are expected to vary their images and not repeat themselves endlessly. But remember, my sane and literate friends, it is not you to whom I will be making this pitch. And from past experience, I have learned nothing gets the attention of a gun nut quicker than being called a "gun nut." Certainly, I could address them in other ways—Luger lunatics ... Colt catatonics ... Glock goons—but I feel it's best to keep it as simple as possible. You know ... for their sake. After all, if gun nuts put as much thought into anything else as they waste on their guns, we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
OK then, here I go ... out to reason with the gun nuts.
Oops! No more room.
Oh well, it wouldn't have done any good, anyway.
Showing 1-31 of 31
Toward the end of a long and very successful career as a "writer," Ann Landers was caught rerunning some of her older columns. Billy boy... are YOU doing that same thing? This was a weak effort; you just "phoned it in!" ~~ Sure, you added a couple references to timely gun-related current events, but otherwise it was your totally predictable anti-gun blather and insults. Zzzzzzzzzzz.... Which might be a bold move in a place like Idaho, if it weren't for the fact that the "gun nuts" don't know who you are or care what you think. Now, if you could get it printed up in "Shotgun News," you might get a more enthusiastic response, which I'm sure is what you hope for every week. ~~ Come up with something original next week, man.
There is nothing original about being against the proliferation of guns in our society, just as there is nothing original in being a gun "enthusiast". Your criticism of Cope's column is spurious. In my opinion, his unoriginal position is superior to yours.
Bill you say "For example, I have learned (thanks to a recent report by Stephen Colbert) of a state legislator from Tennessee who wants to change the law in his state so that bar patrons can carry concealed weapons when they go out drinking. And isn't that just a marvelous idea ... saloon after saloon full of juiced-up rednecks packing pistols?" I know that as an anti, your mind is pretty well closed to facts, but could you at least *pretend* to do some fact checking before spewing your ignorance across the 'net? As Sen. Jackson said: "Someone that has a handgun in an establishment that serves alcohol, they cannot consume any alcohol. They’re not allowed to have a single drink."
Cope's article against the proliferation of guns in our society is not original, nor is bikeboy's position of being a gun "enthusiast". Bikeboy's criticism of Cope is spurious. I prefer Cops's unoriginal article to your position.
Colorman, if you post YOUR "point" a couple more times, it might help! (grin) (The difference is, Bill Cope is an editorial columnist, and I always hope a published editorial columnist can come up with something that will cause his readers to thoughtfully rub their chins for a couple seconds. Not this time.)
So Cope, I take it from your editorial that if I disagree with your position, I am insane and illiterate? Boy! with an ego like that, you are wasting your time,and ours, writing. You need to be a politician!
Apparently Cope is not aware that in Idaho it is legal to carry conceal weapons, including firearms, in bars. It has been that way for quite some time. Perhaps Cope would like to provide the statistics on how that has been a disaster? Or better yet, answer just one question (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx): Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? Until that question can be answered in the affirmative editorials like this should be given all the "respect" of some KKK member ranting about blacks eating at the same restaurant as whites and Jews controlling the world. All appearances are that Bill Cope is just another bigot who has no concern for the truth and has an unfounded bias against gun owners.
Gee, Bill, what did I ever do to you? You sure are throwing an awful whole lot of hyperbole around, there. Did I say something wrong? I assure you that while I own a whole bunch of guns, I'm quite sane, as are millions more like me. It was only very recently that my friends and I used to throw our guns in the trunk before we drove to school in the morning. It never occurred to us that we should instead commit violent felony crimes instead of just going hunting or target shooting after class got out. I'm not sure I know exactly what is "firearms studliness", but I'm fairly certain I don't try to impress any type of "studliness" upon the people around me. I was under the impression that we had a right to argue for our liberty in this wonderful country -- or at least negotiate parts of our liberty on our terms if we felt it necessary. It's awfully confusing -- and frustrating -- for a lot of us that a portion of the voting public is so obsessed with having the boot of government on our necks just in case we might try to do something wrong at some point in the future, and using a criminal's activity as justification for visiting this flavor of governance on the entire populace. -Tim in Connecticut
Let me have a “stab at it” Billy boy. It doesn’t matter what you think. Your little temper tantrum won’t change a thing. Guns are here to stay. I claim a natural right to life, and the most effective means to protect that life, i.e. a firearm or two. Yes, I carry eveywhere it is legal to do so–even in Boise! I won’t be turning them in to you–sorry you’ll have to grow a pair and buy your own. Go ahead and throw your little fit– every day if you like. You won’t change a damn thing. You will never achieve your goal of victim disarmament–especially in the West. I suggest you see a shrink to help you deal with your obvious anger management issues. Feel better now?
When facts and logic fail, we get Bill Cope. His screed contains no facts, no ideas, no principles, no philosophy, and no dignity. All that comes through is Bill Cope's hatred, bigotry, vitriolic intemperance, and vindictive cruelty. Too strong, you think? Tell me Bill; how many American men and women are you willing to kill to see guns eradicated from the land? Do the math, Bill. Around 150 million Americans own a gun. If only ten percent resisted a total gun ban, you would have 15 million new criminals out there to track down, arrest, try, and imprison. 15 million ARMED criminals. How many are you willing to kill, Bill? Tell me, Bill, what would a nation have to do to suddenly arrest and incarcerate 15 million of it's own citizens? Concentration camps, Bill? Gulags? Just how many of us do you want to kill?
It's not just crazed killers from which we need protection in national parks. Common rapists and armed robbers also need to be shot.
I really don't know what afected this poor fellow's mind,but at this point,it's better to just pat him on the head,put a dime in his empty intellectual tin cup,and send him doddering off to watch 'The View' along with the rest of his fellow free-thinkers in lockstep.You just can't reason with people who don't use or believe reason,who can't find room for facts in their arguments.Emotionalism without any knowledge isn't a crime,but it is a shame to think that valuable print space is wasted by such a wastrel.If you disagree with this poor mental beggar,you must be wrong,a nut,or just a stupid redneck.You see this as a defensive posture among the liberally insecure who believe one or several of the names he uses to describe others could be applied to him,so he'll use them first.He shouldn't worry,his insults could not be applied to him without his moving up several steps in the mental food chain,and that isn't likely.Farewell sir,down there in the dark cellar of public discourse,may you always find an audience among the low creatures who believe as you do.
Interesting assembly of bile and muddy thought by the author. Also interesting is that he makes no reference to the personal responsibility that everyone has to defend themselves and their family's, I guess in his "world' that is a responsibility that one gets to conveniently forget or misremember. I guess it is "HIS" responsibility to simply call 911 to defend himself or his loved ones if the occasion arose? If the ones who respond to the 911 call are not there in time to prevent the death or serious injury of say HIS WIFE or CHILD at least HIS conscience is then clear, right? He can wring his hands and shout "What more could I have done? After all I am civilized!" Although I would pronounce "civilized" as "WORM" IMHO. In your "WORM WORLD" you would deny those that currently use firearms to defend themselves those tools that saved their lives or the lives of their loved ones, because after all they are not civilized and are most likely 'GUN NUTS" anyway. Closing thought, In my "WORLD" you have the ability to act as you see fit, even though I think you are a cowardly worm, in yours I do not see you defending my abilities. In my world if you are not willing to act in your own defense even in the slightest, do not come looking for help!! I wouldn't want to condemn you to being gosh or uncivilized.
There sure is a lot of projection in your rant! From the looks of the comments it would seem that those who have read your garbage are all negative toward your view. BTW I don't mind being called a gun nut. What facinates me is how uneducated you are in regards to why us gun nuts object to senseless legislation of firearms. You belittle gun owners for fighting laws that disallow carry in "bars," when really they are fighting the legislation because it "bars" the safety minded patron to go into any restaurant that serves alcohol. Tell me genious, what is my wife supposed to do here in Va if she decides to drop into Ruby Tuesdays for lunch? The law says she can't conceal her little pistol so she has to open carry. Since she keeps it in her purse and not a holster like millions of other women in this country, that would mean the law says she has to carry it in her hand. Well thought out! I guess she could leave it in her car where it does her no good and leaves the possibility for theft. See how stupid that sounds? This is all just a hint at why you have little logic in your argument. Try a little research next time would you?
I'm sorry, but from a middle of the roaders standpoint on the issue, I would expect more from an editorial columnist than for the entire article to be based on outright lies and pure speculation. Perhaps if you wish to sway opinions, you should consider doing some basic fact checking before you write and publish. If you are so sure that your standpoint on this issue is the better of the two sides, you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with a more convincing argument in the future. And yet something tells me we're in for nothing more than outright lies and pure speculation from the author.
I am truly sorry for you. You are either a pathetic, morally bankrupt, ignorant coward, or the man who would be the next Hitler. You remind me of the old saw.... Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to thier own level and beat you with experience. Argue with yourself The 2nd A, stands .. by gods grace and my defence of the constitution, you are able to enjoy the 1st A. Try to take away my guns, I will laughingly let them take the 1st A away from you. And what would a coward like you do ? ........... Amy Sue
Insanity is often described as doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different outcome. I feel sorry for you and your irrational fear of inanimate objects. Every year we hear about how allowing concealed carry will cause the streets to run red with blood because of road rage, etc. Hasn't happened yet. And please, find someone besides Steven Colbert to get your news from. You do know it's really a comedy show, don't you?
OH NOES! THE HUMANITY! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! So, wait... in many states guns are already allowed in bars as long as they are NOT concealed... where are all these bar shootouts you're talking about??? And anyone old enough to own a hand gun (21 years old, i.e. college seniors, we're talking about grown adults, not your "boys... on their way to English 101") goes through the same emotional ups and downs outside of college as those who want to carry concealed on campus, where are all the blood baths??? Did you even do any research to see how old one has to be to buy a gun??? The only 21 year old college freshmen I know are the guys returning from Iraq who are getting a degree on Uncle Sam's dime for serving their country (with guns! OH NOES!) And where are all these national park crazed killers of which you speak when they're outside of the park? I take a handgun every time I go camping and yet somehow I've managed to NOT shoot anyone yet... maybe my gun is defective...? And how will I know who the crazed killer is? He's probably going to be the guy trying to kill me. But it is against the law for me to pursue him. I have a duty to retreat but I can defend myself and my family while doing so. The fact is, you are projecting your own fears and insecurities on the rest of the America while we go about our daily lives NOT shooting each other. You cite 12,000 gun related deaths per year, what percentage is that of the estimated 2,000,000 defensive uses of firearms each year? I'm not making that number up, it was a government study as 5 minutes on Google would show you. You fear what you might do if you had a gun and your only conclusion is that everyone must feel this way. But the facts simply do not support your theories.
Sure are a lot of comments - considering I'm in Idaho I'll just use my imagination and skip reading 'em.
The US is founded on the people’s inalienable rights. See the Declaration of Independence. All US government power comes from the people. Our supreme law is the Constitution. It recognizes the right of the people to bear arms. This trumps any other law. Criminals will always get guns. Citizens should have guns if they want them. It is a matter of record, that cities and states with few gun restrictions have lower crimes rates. It is a matter of record that cities and states with strict gun ownership restrictions have higher crimes rates. It is a matter of record 2 million crimes were stopped by private gun owners. None of your arguments address any facts
Never saw so many comments before - considering I'm in Idaho I'll just skip reading 'em and use my imagination!
What you doing in Idaho?! You need to move to New Jersey with the rest of the anti-gun nuts! You won't see any guns in bars there--or any guns much at all, since they've become a dictatorship, so only criminals and corrupt government officials have guns!
Gun nuts? Loony bastards? Bill, aren’t we a bit smug and condescending today? Why don’t you just crawl back up into your anus, turn out the lights and rock yourself to sleep.
Gee Cope! All this time I thought you just pissed off the "locals" every week. Now I find out you are pissing off people all over the country! I know bwtter than to ask you to re-evaluate your position, but what the hey!
"juiced-up rednecks packing pistols" Looked for the "not reading past here" phrase, found it. Bigotted jerk.
A couple observations, a couple days later... most of the comments are rational and well-thought-out, albeit just a rehash of the same arguments as we've heard a thousand times before. Which is very appropriate for Bill's "original" opinion piece. ~~ I assume that links to Bill's musings must've been posted on pro-Second-Amendment blogs, to elicit such an enthusiastic response. Most of the responders, I'm guessing, don't realize that to Bill, an enthusiastic retort is like manna from Heaven! Bill loves to stir the ant pile! ~~ Have a great and well-armed day, everybody! ;-)
I myself...am a gun-toting, Tennessee redneck...so I must say, I resemble that remark! However, (as usual) this arm-chair, gun-grabbing reporter doesn't have his facts straight. If I'm not mistaken, the recent gun legislation, which would allow law-abiding, concealed carry permit holders into places that serve alcohol, was referring to establishments that earn the majority of their revenue through food sales, (like a Chili's restaurant). These places also, (just so happen) to serve alcohol...the proposed law's intention was to make it possible for a man and his family to patronize these establishments for a nice meal, without having to give up his right to protect that family, should an armed robber decide to come in, and terrorize the place. It would still remain illegal to CONSUME alcohol, WHILE carrying your weapon...so why should I have to go disarmed in public...when all I want is a pleasant dinner out, with my wife? As usual...people who would attempt to take away your Constitutional rights, have to rely on grade-school tactics like name calling, (when the facts of the situation simply don't square, with their ill-conceived notions...). Whatever happened to fair and balanced reporting...or checking one's facts first, before the 'so-called' journalist, spews forth his bile? It just makes them you look incompetent... Zulu Cowboy (a Gun-toting, Tennessee Redneck)
Even though I live in Idah and hunt(mostly archery) I can’t figure out why so many people want to carry concealed weapons-namely handguns. As far as I can tell pistols are only good for three things, target practice at close range, making a insecure person feel like they are powerful or killing someone else at close range. My father who served in the Marines in WW2 would never allow me to buy one. He said they were worthlesslike bring a knife to a gun fight. For a long time I have maintained another approach to the second amendment dilemma. Namely allow anyone that wants to have a hand gun to own one but make the ammunition for them against the law.
Another point- Let's assume you are correct and the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the individuals right to firearms- which is highly debateable. At the time the 2nd amendment was written all that was available was smooth bore black powder muskets and dueling pistols neither of which were accurate. Duelers only had to shoot 20 paces and still it could take many rounds for some one to get hit. Muskets weren't much better. Round after round would be fired to hit opposing soldiers even at close range. If the founders intend for individuals rights to be protected then these are the arms they intended for you to use. So let's be rational for a change. The vast increase in the population density from then to now alone would require some modification to the old standard. Couple this with the improvements in arms from then to now and we have a real problem. Solutions?
There are 4 sacred issues that get a certain political minded person hot under the collar when questioned. Their rights to own a Gun: Their rights to own Dogs that bark and crap everywhere. Their rights to persecute anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity and their arrogant rights to annoy everyone with their noisy motorcycles and Auto pipes. Guns, Dogs rights, Christianity and noisy pipes, seems to be the only topics they'll defend to their death over.
If I understand this properly, a bar owner can decide whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment, but has no authority to regulate the carrying of firearms? I tend to patronize non-smoking bars. If there were both armed and unarmed bars, I would prefer to drink at the bar with the unarmed patrons. Others may differ. They can go drink at the gun bars.
|
|
|
|
Comments (31) RSS