Do anti-gun people such as the author revel in their cultural and technological ignorance of guns? Because it certainly seems they do.
By Sarah Fenske
By Danny Wicentowski
By Lindsay Toler
By Danny Wicentowski
By Danny Wicentowski
By Jessica Lussenhop
By Lindsay Toler
By Lindsay Toler
"I usually don't make any notes when I'm giving a talk," he says. "I might write something down on a napkin, maybe. Not tonight. Tonight I've got some things I need to say."
We're fighting not only "for our country" but "for our souls," he says. The audience is hushed. Beck, it turns out, has a rifle. He raises it above his head. He's on the verge of tears, as he has been throughout the speech. You can hear his voice break, especially when he mentions Sandy Hook.
"After the Sandy Hook massacre, the government went in, seized the opportunity, exploited these families and pushed for more control over our lives. It's immoral."
Applause sweeps through the auditorium. Beck takes a moment to collect himself.
"The only way you can control a free people is to lie! The bigger the lie, the longer you deny reality, the more apt people are to believe it."
It's when he says "they've accepted the media lie that the NRA is malicious" that things start to turn. Thousands of eyes turn toward the media. I get the same feeling I had holding that AR-15, only this time they're holding the metaphorical Bushmasters, and I'm the intruder at the bottom of their stairs.
The next day, I come back for more. I talk to a group of elderly men leaned up against a streetlight. They've come all the way from Tennessee, and they're a lot more interested in my views than they are in telling me theirs, which are largely attacks on the recent gun-control measures.
"I'm from outside the gun debate," I tell them. "I'm a neutral. Really, I have no idea what I'm doing here."
"You better learn quick, boy. There are some bad people in this country."
I've heard this several times over the weekend, and at this point I start to ask myself, in haltingly perfect English: Do I need a gun? How am I going to stop someone who breaks into my house? Does it matter that a new gun would instantly become my most valuable possession in that house, followed not that closely by my tea kettle?
I limp up the escalator for one last date with madness, a speech by Ted Nugent. He's calling the speech "Freedom Is Not Free," which I immediately recognize as one of the musical numbers from Team America: World Police. It's a ballad satirizing the overuse of the word "freedom" in political rhetoric. I hum it to myself and wonder how to compute what I'm witnessing: a speech by Ted Nugent that unwittingly has the same name as a song that expertly satirizes the likes of Ted Nugent. Eventually it hits me: Satire just died in a conference hall in downtown Houston.
I leave the auditorium before the speech starts, past the "WAAAAALL OF GUUUUUNS" that never runs out of guns and into the street. I realize as I leave that, no, I'll never squeeze the trigger of an AR-15, that I'll never own a handgun. I probably won't even buy a stun gun. There's just nothing for me here, I think as I make for the door, although I will admit: There's something about those halberds.
Do anti-gun people such as the author revel in their cultural and technological ignorance of guns? Because it certainly seems they do.
a/ Gun crime has SOARED in the U.K since the banning you are so proud of.
b/ We don't want your anti-Constitution kind here. Tell your wife to divorce you and send you home to your fantasy-land where you prefer rubbing up against men in "the tube", or just both of you get out.
c/ While you are still here, why don't you go visit Mexico (since you love THEIR culture so much more than ours) and see how SEVENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE have been killed by the Cartels, most of them because their government DISARMS the majority of the population and/or will not allow them the level of self-defense weaponry that the Cartels are buying from the corrupt mexican military, or that they are having hand-delivered by ERIC HOLDER AND OBAMA.
d/ Until you get on the plane back to Londonistan, you need to print out these bumper stickers and use them appropriately:
Put this bumper sticker on your car:
And put this flyer on the front door of your home and at your place of work:
And be sure to put this sign on the front door of your kid's school:
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Judge Alex Kozinski
There are well over 300 million guns in America and an estimated 80 million gun owners. The Liberal-Communists are delusional to think that all free men and women will just hand over their weapons .... some will, but most will not. History readily shows us that unarmed citizens soon lose their natural rights and become powerless against an oppressive government which then begins killing its dissenting, unarmed citizens. The preceding is factual and the details of these events, unlike earlier times in history, are readily available to people who care enough to look. Millions have begun "Prepping" and have gathered weapons, ammunition and supplies in unprecedented amounts in preparation for what they feel is inevitable. Our Communist infiltrated government, which has been actively dismantling our Constitution and eliminating our God-given freedoms, is also prepping for the fight that they will soon be facing, albeit their numbers are much, much smaller. Freedom runs deep in the veins of most Americans and they will not disarm. Defections from the Government's forces will run rampant as they have already begun to understand the inherently evil ideology that they would support. They will soon come to realize that they will be facing friends and family that will fight to their deaths to be free. America is waking up! God help us all.
Having been stationed in the U.K. and originally from California, this opinion is familiar ground. Fear drives many of our base emotions whether dealing with firearms, spiders or other imagined dangers we expect to leap out of the darkness.
The Author states:
"But despite all these clearly necessary precautions for displaying a semiautomatic rifle in a place containing tens of thousands of people, my palms are slick with anxiety. I need to leave. Now."
...and so perhaps he should have. Culturally speaking the underexposure of dealing with firearms has created a phobia in many geographic locations. That is perfectly understandable.
In all honesty, Mr. Cleaver did not "travel to the heart of gun culture" - he went to a National sales pitch. What did he expect?
One doesn't travel to a Convention to learn about rifles or the "gun culture" - it is a daily journey that should be experienced with those that exercise the care and due diligence we have been afforded by our Constitution.
I encourage all readers to take the opportunity to consider - is Mr. Cleaver afraid or is he attempting to create fear?
This is a great article, showing another perspective on this issue. I own guns myself, but I know we need to put the "well regulated" back into the second amendment. It IS way too easy to get guns and there are people who should never have them. We may not need to go to extremes like they have in the UK, but we can definitely take some pages from their playbook, as well as the rest of the industrialized world.
Something needs to happen because we are rapidly becoming as bad as a third world nation. And there are elements in this nation, including the NRA, that would be all about having another revolution.
They love to say, we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government, but never once do they actually notice that the government has the military. And last I checked, your AR 15 has no chance against a tank or a jet. IF the government was going to come after you, which all signs point to that never happening, they have much more resources than you.
I like the idea that this piece is written by someone that's not from this country and viewing it from a different perspective. He comes from a place where people aren't screaming that they need firearms to be "free" or spreading the idea that there's this big bad government out there that wants to somehow "imprison" them so they must arm themselves against it. The whole idea of this and the attitudes he came across were completely alien to him. He lived up until recently in a country that DOES have extremely strict gun control yet he was able to enjoy as free of a life there as any here in the U.S. with no danger of being put in "concentration camps" or anything of that nature that the fear mongers against any sort of gun control here try to lead people to believe will happen if any gun control legislation is ever passed (and nothing that has ever been proposed is anywhere near as stringent as regulations in the UK). Gun crime is almost non-existant where he is from. He can walk the streets or go to a movie and his children to school with extremely little fear of some crazy with a gun coming in and taking out 20+ people in a matter of seconds to minutes. It is ironic that the reason that so many people in this country feel that they need to own a gun for protection is precisely because so many people have guns. On a side note, what he related about the NRA member harassing the woman reading the names is one of my biggest problems with the NRA and people with a militant pro-firearms mindset. Instead of acknowledging that there are innocent people that have been killed by guns, through accidents, crime and suicide, and respecting those victims and their grieving loved ones, they make it about them and their guns over the human being. If these people would respectfully acknowledge that guns do lead to the loss of innocent lives and show some remorse about that and respect for those innocents that have died by them, perhaps more people would be open to listening to and considering their viewpoint that though they have a negative side, guns do have their positive uses and place in society and it would also help if they seemed more outspoken about gun safety and keeping them out of the hands of children, the mentally ill, and criminals....but the vast majority of their attention seems to be focused solely on yelling as loud as they can that no one will take their guns away, regardless of the fact that zero legislation has ever been put before congress that would do any such thing to law abiding citizens. Even the past assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire and the one recently put before congress was not retroactive, meaning only that no more could be sold. Those that already owned them could keep them.
Ignorant journalists do not help educate the public, especially ones that readily admit their own ignorance.
Gavin, you held a rifle, not a gun. Learn what words mean before using them. Some will claim rifles are a subcategory of guns, but they are weak-minded, too. There are shotGUNS and handGUNS, but you held a barrel with RIFLING.
You also did something really stupid. You handle a weapon without any knowledge how to do so. You should have asked the experts what to do. But you did not dare show your ignorance to those people, right? Well, you did by putting your finger on the trigger. You fooled no one but yourself.
Next time, when you are surrounded by more knowledgeable people, ask them for information before reporting on your stupidity.
@AmericanMom I clicked on the "Like" button for your post and it registered "Unlike" and won't register a "Like" so I'm doing the long way. Well said!
@smdrpepper "<i>Something needs to happen because we are rapidly becoming as bad as a third world nation</i>"...
You have <b>NO</b> idea what you're talking about - not even the remotest clue...
You want to take that '<i>well regulated</i>' somewhere, take it to the hood and see how it plays there...
"<i>They love to say, we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government, but never once do they actually notice that the government has the military</i>"...
So you automatically assume that the vast majority of volunteer armed forces will turn their guns on the citizens just because they are so ordered?
"<i>And last I checked, your AR 15 has no chance against a tank or a jet</i>"...
Apparently you've never been to a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA8I5ADd4Mk"><b>Big Sandy Shoot</b></a>...
:<i>IF the government was going to come after you, which all signs point to that never happening, they have much more resources than you</i>"...
Never?!?! Maybe and then again maybe not...
@smdrpepper , the military may have more guns than I do, but they do not have more guns than We, the people, have. Also, the members of the military are citizens as well. They are sworn to not follow unlawful orders. Our military cannot operate as a whole against the people. Look at what what happened when one man stood against a tank in Tienanmen Square. Soldiers are not robots blindly following orders. Some will, but the vast majority will not.I do not fear the majority of the military. I fear a few with high power stealing our personal liberties, seeking our phone records, and stuff like that.
I also know the police cannot stop a criminal. They may be able to eventually catch up and arrest him, but I take personal responsibility for my safety.
@smdrpepper Exactly. I am a gun owner myself but I am not one of these raving fanatics and I am realistic (and sane) enough to see that there are cons along with the pros of firearms. Owning a firearm is a very serious responsibility and I don't think enough people take that responsibility seriously enough based on the number of accidental deaths, firearms being allowed to fall into the wrong hands be that stolen by a criminal because they weren't locked up properly or a mentally ill friend or family member getting ahold of them for the same reason, etc. Guns are tools for a purpose and to glorify them and basically worship them the way some people do is ludicrous. To go around talking about them in such a way that it gives the impression that owning one puts some sort of magical "bubble of protection" around you is also ludicrous. The reason that some people are totally against any firearms and/or fear them is precisely because of the crackpot things that many gun owners say and believe. If they acted more sane and grounded in reality and as I said in another post acknowledged the cons to guns and the fact that innocent people ARE killed by them (thousands every year in this country) and showed some remorse and more interest in promoting responsible gun ownership and safety over just screaming about people trying to take their guns all the time, people might not be so against them or anti-gun.
@angela52376 You fail to mention the fact that, although Great Britain may have fewer crimes involving the use of guns, their violent crime rate per capita surpasses that of the U.S. In G.B. they use use knives, clubs, fists, feet, etc. and manage to accomplish what they did before their gun ban, perhaps less humanely. Secondly, the purpose of the Second Amendment is protection from tyranny, be it from outside invasion or arising from within our borders. All one needs to do is look back in history at countries that have had the most vile of dictatorships (U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, Germany, Cuba, etc., etc.) and recognize the pattern of gun registration followed by confiscation. You say our U.S. gov't. would never turn on us? You're right. It won't. As long as the Second Amendment is respected.
@JamesMadison Thought you might find this helpful.gun1 [guhn] Show IPA noun, verb, gunned, gun·ning.noun1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shotby the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.2.any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver.3.a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.4.any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.
@JamesMadison Yet somehow he miraculously managed to survive this long without knowing how to use one or owning one. Hmmmm........
@drgb @angela52376 Come on drgb....you seriously believe that a bunch of citizens even if they were all armed with AR-15's woud be able to combat the numbers, technology, and weaponry of the U.S. military....or any other industrialized country's military for that matter....those days are long over. Other countries including the UK have gun registration and the like and did NOT turn into dictatorships. The reasons for those dictatorships came about for a variety of reasons unrelated to firearms and most likely the proliferation of firearms in the country would not have stopped it from happening, in some cases it might have actually make it easier in some countries for people like that to take power depending on what their support is in the general population which is usually based on the problems the country is facing and the desperation of its people. But really the point is, with the amount of money we spend in just a single MONTH on our military, there is very little chance that the citizens of this country could any longer stop any inside or outside "tyranny." I know it's fun to fantasize about being some sort of "freedom fighter" but it's just not reality anymore. Once the days of single shot muzzle loading rifles being the best that anyone had, military or non-military, those days pretty much came to an end. As far as "violent crime in the UK" goes, jrm9584 has very accurately stated the issue with comparing our stats to theirs. Clubs, hammers, knives, etc can of course inflict serious injury or death on a person or even a few people, but you can't take out the number of people in the very short amount of time that you can with a firearm....and also do it from a distance which is not something you can do with those other weapons.
"the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different... theFBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime”as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes."
@drgb You're right, it's the pop gun in your closet that's keeping you safe from a nuclear-armed, drone-having, stealth bomber-owning military!
@chris19832009 , ask anyone who takes shooting serious (as all who shoot ought to do). You'll get that rifles are rifles, and guns are guns. Misuse words often enough, and their meanings will change. Marriage is under a transformation. Is a bike a foot powered device? Or is a bike a chopper? See? Words misused blur their meanings, as do a bunch of illiterate journalists calling a rifle a gun. Find a US Marine to define the precise meaning of these words.
@angela52376, hmmm... indeed. I've managed to go this long without the use of a cellphone. What difference does that make? I would not write an article on owning cellphone. This author is ignorant of weapons, yet he has no issue writing about them. Curiousier and curiousier.
@smdrpepper @drgb @angela52376 Pepper, the reason why cops use hollow points is because they are more disabling and kill efficient. If they really cared about over-penetration they'd be using frangible bullets. FEMA camps exist, do your own research. There is ample evidence available proving so. Watch Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory episode that he did on the FEMA camps and see how the govt. lies and covers up. You're a Top Commenter? .... Really! You're the best that Missouri has to offer? Fool.
@drgb @angela52376 Hollowpoint bullets are the preferred bullet for any law agency since when fired, do not generally pass through the body to hit someone else. Thats common sense. As for the rest, its just pure paranoia, and has no basis in reality. FEMA camps, really? Yeah, your a right winger all right since these are their usual talking points.
@angela52376 @drgb I'll be only too happy to respond to your posts. I hardly know where to begin, but let's start out simply. You make the assumption I'm "right wing" and go on to accuse me (by association) of making up a claim, making up evidence in support, claim "actual" evidence is essentially faulty, use fabricated evidence to prove it, and "claim victory". Did you actually read my response? Can you point out even ONE example where I've used the tactics you've described? My initial reply to your post referred to a comparison of violent crime in the U.K. and U.S. Unlike your friend jrm9584, who attempted to mislead everyone by omitting the info that would prove my point, I quoted the remainder of the article he cited (see my response to his post). I won't rehash my rebuttal as you can read it above. The remainder of my reply to you related to the relevance of the Second Amendment. In your "more than two decades of historical research into this country's history", you surely must be aware of the importance of this God-given right. If you think it isn't relevant to today's world, state your evidence. And if you don't think we should fear our gov't. please explain the need for Dept. of Homeland Security to purchase 1.6 BILLION rounds of HOLLOW-POINT bullets. While you're at it, tell us why there are hundreds of FEMA camps scattered around the U.S. capable of imprisoning millions. I search out and deal with truth, whatever the source. I know more than what the mainstream media reports. If the MSM's your only source for news, don't waste my time.
@drgb @angela52376 Ah....of course you don't have "time" right now....you don't have time to back up your assertions and accusations however you have time to reply saying that you don't have time. Cop out. No, it wouldn't matter where I learned what I know, what primary source documents I've studied getting my degree or during my more than two decades of historical research into this country's history because you would say it's inaccurate no matter what simply because it does not agree with what you want to be true. Here is the Right Wing Scientific Method: 1. Make up claim 2. Make up evidence to support claim. 3. Claim all actual evidence is wrong/liberally biased/deliberately fabricated through some conspiracy 4. Use made up evidence to prove it. 5. Claim victory
Please....if you have the time to accuse someone of being misinformed or ignorant or stupid then you have the time to present your evidence to prove such claims. If you don't have the time to do that, then don't bother to post and attempt that sorry cop out.
@angela52376 @drgb Sorry I don't have time right now to reply to all the assumptions/inaccuracies/lack of knowledge & history contained in your posts. I may do so at a future time if you insist. In the meantime, why don't you bone up on world & U.S. history from a source other than what you've read. Does the mind good.
@jrm9564 @drgb @angela52376 Found the article from which you're quoting. The portion you quote seems to support a position implying that England and Wales are less violent or at least no more violent than the U.S. Reading further, however, the author admits that in his "best estimate" the U.K. rate would be adjusted downward from 1,797/100,000 to 776/100,000 using the stated criteria. That's still nearly twice the rate of 403/100,000 in the U.S. (Nice try. You only committed the offense of lying by omission, which on this forum won't get you any jail time but should put a dent in your credibility). I've tried to confine my position to the necessity of honoring the Second Amendment and the intent of the founders. That's not to diminish the inherent, God-given right of each individual to self-defense. Think about it. Your residence is being broken into at 3:00 a.m. You're going to do one of four things: 1) Get your gun. 2) Wish you had a gun. 3) Call someone with a gun (the cops). 4) Become a victim. Fortunately, in this country, you still have a choice. If you choose # 3 or 4 I wouldn't want to be your spouse/child/fellow occupant.
@sfc415 @drgb So then, are you implying that Americans should give up their right to arm themselves and feel just as safe as a result? Perhaps you should confer with those who've lived in countries where gun confiscation has occurred. People have a tendency to disregard laws that have no "teeth", no punishment for violation. The "teeth" in our Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. Without it, the remainder are just words on paper to those who would like to take control over the masses. It's hard to believe how many responders to my previous comment above are ignorant of history. If politicians are among the least trustworthy of all occupations, why would you entrust them with something as precious as your liberty? A couple of noteworthy quotes: 1) "A nation that expects to be ignorant and free, expects what never was and never will be". -- T. Jefferson 2) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".
@angela52376, the point I got from the article was that someone without any understanding of firearms went to play around with firearms to write an article about their experience from a complete ignorant standpoint. Perhaps you found deeper meaning in the uninformed article. I did not.
So, Great Britain has no murders, no rapes, no crime, simply because thy passed a law saying the common man must flee a crime rather than defend himself? Really? The recent hacking with an axe shows that the unarmed person is at danger to criminals.
Your overused "fact" is flawed. Yes, people with firearms unfortunately too often injure themselves or loved ones. But not more than they defend themselves. You do not need a dead body to make using a firearm a useful choice in defense. How many unreported times as a criminal fled without a shot being fired? When criminals know you are armed and willing to defend yourself, they mostly run like little scared nothings.
We agree that too many accidents happen with firearms. Too many accidents happen with motorcycles and cars. Too many accidents happen with swimming pools. Accidents are what they are. More responsibility is needed for each, including firearm safety.
I do not glorify guns. I respect the rights of my fellow citizens to defend themselves in any legal manner they choose. Fortunately, the Second Amendment prevents our government from taking our ability to defend ourselves.
If you want stats, more unarmed people die waiting on the police to arrive. Stats can be used and misused.
@JamesMadison @angela52376 Yeah that was kind of the point to show that someone that has not lived in our society where ironically enough so many people feel the need to have a gun for protection precisely because so many people have guns sees the attitudes and mindsets here as so alien. The far right in this country often try to make it sound like people can't possibly survive without one but the statistics actually show that you're more likely to be harmed by your own gun than you are to save yourself or anyone else with it. Listen, I'm not against responsible gun ownership and we own a couple ourselves, BUT I also don't buy into the fear mongering gun fanaticism that so many in this country preach. I also don't glorify guns as so many do. They are simply tools for a purpose and owning one is a very serious responsibility that I'm afraid based on the numbers of accidental deaths, the number of firearms stolen and then falling into the hands of criminals every year, etc that not enough people that own them take that responsibility seriously enough.