Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.  

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come. 

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today. 

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation. 

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section. 

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

No experience necessary

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.  

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere.  

Hell, it’s even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me).

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

Death by a thousand cuts

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.  

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there’s a lot of gun control to see the possible connection).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too.  We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.  

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.

A dangerous servant and fearful master

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internet, domain names, Facebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else.  Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You’re screwed under liberal logic, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services — things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own — they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the “ATF”). We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona, Patty and Paul Mueller, John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn’t help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF’s “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup,” “Project Gunrunner” scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren’t there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren’t there, and asked God why we couldn’t have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world’s distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call “sheepdogs” and we’re proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us “cowboys” and “wannabes” for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one’s own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them.

Do unto others

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars.

So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks?

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.  

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being.  I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I’d perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice.  

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn’t help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs?

The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now.

Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve

I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late.  

Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns — but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.


Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Post a comment

jlaudner
Jonathon Laudner

This might be the best Daily article of the year! Everything said in this article is absolutely true and I couldn't have said it better! Kudos Mr. Snell!

gabriel-stoffa
Gabriel Stoffa

I think what you meant to say is, "Everything said in this article is absolutely [right] ..." *rimshot* Oh yeah, pun inserted.

Texdakota
Art Rieber

The problem here is that his second amendment argument is obsolete. If you think whatever gun you currently own is going to stop the government if it chooses to become tyrannical, you are living in a world of full of fantasy. Did you watch what happened in Boston? They will shut down an entire city to come and get you if need be and whatever weapons you possess will be no match for theirs. Back in "the day" that your kind so lovingly longs for the weapons that citizens owned and the government owned were equal. Those days are long gone and will never be back. It must be terrible to be so paranoid.

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

Art, read Unintended Consequences by John Ross when you get the chance.

In Boston, you had two (or more) people kill a bunch of innocent people. The people of Boston are unarmed and afraid, they welcome the police into their homes. Would they welcome tanks in the streets, cops watching there every move and sit meakly in their homes for weeks if a few "crazies" were randomly hunting IRS or ATF agents?

How long would the country allow them to shut down the whole nation if 2 or 3 "crazies" went to work in the 50 largests cities?

Does the "government" have enough people to shut down 50 or 100 or 200 major cities? The bomber in Boston was OUTSIDE their martial law zone. Could they have shut down the whole city?

There is a rational reason why the "elites" want to disarm the American people. It's because we ARE still a threat. Less than 3% of all gun deaths are by long rifles yet those are the ones they are going after because long rifles (Single shot, bolt action, and even the evil AR-15) are a threat to THEM.

Texdakota
Art Rieber

Nobody is advocating taking anyone's guns away even those big bad spooky imaginary "elites" whoever they may be and if the objective was to take away guns, it would have been done already. Stevie, watch out, that knock on the door just may be the boogey man.

Sol91
Colton Schaben

Nobody? Seriously? And Art, if the government were to revoke the Second Amendment in one fell swoop, there would be mass revolt. Rather, as outlined in the proposed (and now figuratively zombified; dead but also 'alive') Assault Weapons Ban, the 125+ proposed weapons would be banned from being produced or imported to the United States. Any weapon with a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds would be considered an "assault weapon" and controlled as such by the ATF; to be treated in the same regard as suppressors, ACTUAL machine guns, sawn-off shotguns (AOW). This requires the gun being registered in a federal database, which if you follow the lineage is a very bad ordeal. NFA (National Firearms Act) violations impose a ten-year minimum federal prison sentence, which would happen if you transferred your would-be 'illegal' gun to a friend or your child.

Anyone who owns these currently were to be grandfathered in, however they are not allowed to transfer these in the future. Thus, once you (the owner) must fork over the gun to the government when you die; which is confiscation. They market sympathetic guilt trips in an attempt to gain the public's trust to do as they please. Not that Sandy Hook, Aurora, VT, Tuscon wasn't terrible, it was. Why punish the majority for the acts of a cowardly few? It's not a case of public safety; people who abide by the law aren't the ones doing the shooting. This is a case of an attempt to gain control over the masses; ban the "assault weapons" the citizens have no to little (at best) practical means to opposition.

Lastly, you play down the importance of the second amendment. Why then, in the most liberal document ever conceived in history (the Constitution of the United States) would the right to own firearms be second on the list?

lppd841
Jeff Macdonald

Mr. Snell,
Excellent article. Probably best understood by a fellow sheepdog. Sorry to learn it will be your last at ISD. Stay safe and good luck, brother.

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

Art, you are exactly what this article talks about. Your lack of respect jumps off the page.

1. My name is Steve, not Stevie. Don't insult my name. Read my post, I didn't insult you.
2. I'm not a child afraid of a boogey man. Don't insult my maturity. Read my post, I didn't imply you were a frightened child.
3. If you don't think there are people in Washington (or Des Moines for that matter) that think they know what's best for everyone and intend to say there for as long as they can that's fine, say that. Don't insult me by calling them big bad spooky imaginary "elites".
4. If you think advocates start by demanding their end goal be implemted right away I will refer to to the ante-smoking and pro-weed lobby. They both started small (not on planes, only for cancer patients) and worked from there.
5. To claim that NOBODY is advocating taking ANYONE's guns away is clearly wrong. A less kind person would call it a bold faced lie. I'm sure, for example, that you & I would advocate to take the guns away from crazy people one way or another.

Forget Unintended Consequences, please just read the article again.

HR Guy
Tim Hansen

This article might be construed as a "drive by shooting.". However, I understand some of his points. Unfortunately, the points are visceral to the level of antagonizing the reader. The bottom line is that all sides must be willing to compromise on this issue. However, the NRA, which is fueling the flames has taken a no compromise approach. That's too bad. I fear this issue will get worse before it gets better. In the meantime, I will continue to work toward a reasonable level of gun regulation in the United States.

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

Jim, I understand what you're saying. Usually when trying to solve a problem one must compromise. But this is not a debate on the level of highway funding or how many meat inspecters are needed. Sometimes you can't compromise. Would you compromise on the freedom of the press?

Isn't it reasonable to require a reporter to have a degree in a subject before they can report on it? No? Let's compromise and allow a story by an "unqualified" reporter to be printed if it's reviewed by a government appointed expert.

Thats reasonable isn't it? To make sure the public gets accurate information. Of course, we might have to shut down some blogs if they appear to be reporting the news.

I stand by the constitution. Are there things I would like to change, yes but I want to change the constitution legally rather than give the politicians the option to igrore what they don't like. If you want to infringe on the right to bear arms (for whatever reason) then support the enforcement of the constitution as is and propose an amendment.

Don't try to work your way around it because your friends think it's "reasonable" to do so.

4TruthandJustice
Jack Noel

Mr. Snell's last editorial for the Iowa State Daily should be posted by the Washington Post, the New York Times and every major newspaper in the country. In 45 years of involvement with the gun control issue, I've never seen a more complete explanation of "the problem." Most of all, I have every reason to believe his fear is real: the gun control advocates are unknowingly pushing a huge segment of the population closer to radicalization.

I myself have a daughter who teaches grade school. As I wrote to President Obama: she loves her kids, they love her. And I love her. The Sandy Hook massacre shocked me to the core. Partly because (as I also wrote to the President) I know that schools are "protected" by a "gun free zone" and even my daughter's proficiency with guns wouldn't have saved her or her kids because that "zone" prohibits even the protectors of our children FROM protecting them from armed attack. I foolishly thought that our President, being the father of two daughters, would see the depth of my sincerity and of my fear. Imagine the shock I got when he (as Mr. Snell points out) appointed Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden to "spearhead" the drive for (more) "reasonable restrictions" on gun owners. Of course, the idea of eliminating or reforming the Gun Free Zones law never even came up.

It's all gotten even worse in the months following that terrible day. I've seen literally hundreds of gun control proponents smear and insult EVERY gun owner in the country.
Even the irony of seeing another 20 million guns sold AFTER Obama's Dec. 16th call for gun control doesn't seem to phase the gun control "movement." A nationwide shortage of many guns (including AR-15s) and ammunition resulted. Still, the drumbeat for gun control continues. As Mr. Snell points out: gun owners are NOT going to trust any political agent or party which calls for gun controls, no matter how "reasonable" they try to make it seem.

Scott M
Scott Murphy

Something Mr Snell didn't say but I am seeing from more and more gun people who also support gay marriage and other "liberal" causes is screw the people who want to take my rights away. This attitude is best exemplified by this post http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
Another good blog post by someone who knows guns and gun law is this one https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
The facts are that we are winning the battles against the anti gun people it's slow going because most of these people proposing new laws are ideological idiots who if their brains were a brush pile wouldn't have two sticks to rub together for the fire they need to see the light. Let's use Art as an example as he exemplifies what Barry Snell is commenting on. Art promptly disses and belittles the author, Steve and anyone else who would like to keep their lawfully purchased property. What'll happen next is someone will respond with facts and we'll see Art exhibit an unhealthy interest in the size of their sexual equipment. When he continues to be hammered with historical facts, CDC and Harvard studies and quotes from the people writing anti gun bills he'll disappear mumbling to himself about how unreasonable we are.
Mr Snell skipped one thing, the reason we (meaning the pro gun side) wins is shooting is a lot more fun than banning it so if we can get the uninformed but open person to the range there is a very good chance they'll become converts. If not to becoming gun owners they at least start wanting a rational debate.

Kirk
Kirk Kelsen

Thank you, Mr. Snell.

Xando
Xando Jones

Well this article is outstanding, and thank you Mr. Snell. I'm sorry to read that now I've discovered you it's too late. This is your last column here! I've had all the exact same thoughts, frustrations, and levels of heightened distrust that were expressed so well in the article, yet I have to keep these things all to myself. In my circle of friends, family, co-workers, I'm quite alone in these thoughts. So when I find somebody out there like Mr. Snell it's electrifying just to see that I'm not alone. It is encouraging to see these arguments put forward. It's also educational, in helping to show people like me how these arguments can be made more effective for use in our own lives. This article is chocked full of great links and well supported. It's very helpful indeed. Thanks a million!

mreed
Michael Reed

Excellent! Well reasoned, and yet passionate and compassionate. This same description of the unhinged, unthinking viciousness expressed by the pathologically anti-gun acolytes is also true of the offensively mis-named "animal rights", "anti-gmo" and "pro-'undocumented'-immigrant" mobs. Being located in Iowa, you are probably well aware of this. It seems there are more and more subjects where reason, understanding and acceptance are readily sacrificed at the altars of our self-righteous, self-aggrandizing and self-appointed moral superiors.

Bryan
Bryan Simmons

"The bottom line is that all sides must be willing to compromise on this issue. However, the NRA, which is fueling the flames has taken a no compromise approach. That's too bad. I fear this issue will get worse before it gets better. In the meantime, I will continue to work toward a reasonable level of gun regulation in the United States. "

Sorry Tim, you are completely wrong on this issue. I should not, nor will I compromise my rights.

Your insistence that I compromise my right to keep and bear arms is akin to my insisting that compromise your write to free speech. You would obviously resist efforts to infringe upon your right to speak out about what you consider to be an important political issue. Of course we gun owners could always continue to work to regulate your right to free speech. Would be about the same thing.

SDN
Stephen Nelson

Barry, if we can't trust them, how exactly do we live in a civil society that REQUIRES a basic level of trust in our fellow citizens to function?

We can't. And that means that this column is too little, loo late. Civil War is inevitable.

DaveK
David Kahler

"An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives..."

Excellent point; I would also add those who live through a terrible circumstance (like Gabby Giffords) who believe that their survival makes them an expert or gives them some kind of moral authority to dictate to others. I lived through a fire; does that make me an arson expert? A friend of mine lived through a plane crash; does that make him an expert on airplane safety? Their is no rationality anymore coming from the left. It is all emotional rhetoric and hyperbole.

Imma_commenter
Imma Commenter

You've got a great future in writing for The Blaze...good luck!

Fool....

headhuntersix
JB Mountaindogsix

Wow, as complete an argument as I think you'll find on the issue. Very illuminating comments as well. Art......while Uncle Sam may seem all powerful for shutting down Boston. Imagine if the entire population was hostile or atleast sympathetic to the bomber. How far would the cops have gotten. I watched much the same during my 4 plus tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is not very far. I think the message here is that gun grabbers really ought to back off. I was as horrified to the response in Watertown as I was to the bombing...and I'm from Boston. I got my drivers license in Watertown. YOu know the message is getting through to Obama when he has to mention government tyranny in his speech at Ohio State. I'll keep my guns.

David Jackson
David Jackson

Excellent article Mr. Snell! Probably articulates the debate better than anything printed in any media source out there recently.


"You've got a great future in writing for The Blaze...good luck!
Fool...."
-Imma Commenter

What an eloquent response and critique you have there Imma. Way to show you know what you're talking about! Who is the fool???

robertsgunshop
Robert Fowler

This outstanding article is showing up on blogs all over. This needs to be spread far and wide. Via Con Dios Mr. Snell. May wherever you go from hear, may you have fair seas and following winds.

Aaron
Aaron Green

Tim,
The issue is FREEDOM. I and many like myself REFUSE to compromise on freedom.

Weisshaupt
Adam Weisshaupt

Excellent Article, but this isn't just about guns. Liberals have this same contempt for those who don't agree in any endeavor - from AGW to economics.The only thing American about a liberal is their geographic location. They reject not only the second amendment but the entire philosophy of the founders. They reject the rule of law, personal responsibility, limited government, and inalienable rights. They are herd animals.. sheep, and sheep are afraid of sheepdogs. They want to pass personal responsibility for their lives to the collective, and as such they simply can't perceive themselves as individuals or understand those who do. . Belonging and commanding the admiration of the herd is far more important to them than the truth, or individual liberty. "The community comes before the individual", a sentiment engraved around every NAZI coin, is their motto, and they will not hesitate to sacrifice any individual on the altar of the "public good" as determined by the leaders of their tribe ( Harold is that most dangerous of animals- clever sheep) A liberal is unwilling to recognize your humanity because you aren't part of the herd, and as such co-existence with them is simply not possible. Liberals always end up attempting mass murdering their neighbors - all of those Governments you spoke of were also all dominated by the political Left. The left's tolerance is non existent - they tolerate Blacks & hispanics - so long as the Black or hispanic tows the party line. Women are not "real women" if they aren't liberal. Gay men aren't really gay if they believe in liberty. The are only tolerant of those who think and act as they wish them to act. They are willing to live and let live only so long as they can use the government (and its guns) as a weapon to coerce others into living their way. Democrats have always been the party of slavery. ., only now they advocate state ownership of the individual vs. private ownership. They declare freedom is what you have left over after the State has made its demands. They declare they will not abide by the constitution - a contract between citizen and citizen, according to its original meaning. Only a fraud would claim a contract means other than what was understood by its signers, yet that is what Liberals do claim. They can't be trusted because they never deal in good faith on ANY ISSUE. The only principle they have is power, and the without the double standards they would have no standards at all. There can be and will be no mending of fences with these people- for they desire that even less than coming to table to talk about guns.. They have bankrupted us, and now MUST implement a police state in order to retain power as the dollar diminishes as a failed currency. They have doomed us and our children to a time of famine, war and poverty. Make sure they reap what they have sown.

Texdakota
Art Rieber

Snell apparently does not understand that the second amendment, like most constitutional amendments, is not without limitations. I believe that it was back in the 30s when machine guns were made illegal to possess. Even one of the most Supreme Court Justices, Scalia agrees that citizens can not possess whatever type of weapons they want if and when the government chooses to enact laws that ban certain guns. If Snell wants to argue about having guns to protect against some imagined government tyranny, sorry too late. The government's arsenal is far greater than what citizens possess and if they choose to do battle, the citizen will lose. Fortunately, the majority of the country wants sensible gun safety laws and it is only a matter of time before we have them and we will all survive the new laws. Just look at how unpopular many of the legislators that voted against the most recent bill have become. They will eventually fall in line or they will be booted out of office.

Weisshaupt
Adam Weisshaupt

@ Tim Hansen "However, the NRA, which is fueling the flames has taken a no compromise approach."

And why should I "compromise" on my inalienable rights? Why should I sumbit to being treated as a criminal when I have committed no crime? And when the left get this "compromise" the left was ask for another when the next horror occurs , citing the need to "compromise" again. And the next horror will occur, because these laws do nothing to stop criminals - they only can be used to persecute and disarm those with whom the left disagrees. So again, why should I compromise? In a compromise, don't both parties benefit? Because I see no benefit to dealing with any liberal. They lie. They Cheat. They Steal and never deal in good faith, preferring to demonize or silence others rather than debate them .

Weisshaupt
Adam Weisshaupt

@ Art "The problem here is that his second amendment argument is obsolete. If you think whatever gun you currently own is going to stop the government if it chooses to become tyrannical, you are living in a world of full of fantasy."

Yep. Probably gonna die then. But then, if one is going to die anyway, because liberals ALWAYS MASS MURDER their political opposition when they become powerful enough, is there a good reason why one would not target the liberal jerks who voted to have him killed before the Army comes? Of course you are assuming that the volunteer citizen Army will not split along ideological lines and fight each other, and that they are willing to mass murder your neighbors, but then will become wonderful benign towards you once they are gone.

You are no different than the elected officials who callously laugh off the young woman who says she might have avoided being raped had she been armed. After all the liberals thought she had slim chances of success. - therefore SHE SHOULD HAVE NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. I will take my slim chance if its all the same to you, and if I can kill just one thug, that means one less for the next guy.

You don't understand that real Americans would rather die than live under tyranny, because you personally can't conceive of in sacrificing your life for others. You would rather be a slave because you are a selfish coward , and the fact others are not is baneful to you.

SeanR
Sean Rehurek

@Art No other constitutional amendment has near the amount of restrictions the second does. In fact the only restrictions placed on the other amendments simply relate to property damage, or harm being done to another person. You can yell fire in a theater if no harm or damage comes of it, and not be held criminally liable, just like you can depict child pornography as long as no person was harmed. The same rational already applies to firearms, I cannot discharge my weapon and harm someone and then claim it was my second amendment right, without any rationale behind why I discharged my weapon.

Machine guns were never made illegal to posses at the federal level, they were simply taxed at an outrageous amount so that only the rich could afford to purchase one. It wasn't until the 1980s that the new manufacture of machine guns was outlawed for civilians thus making it nearly impossible for anyone without a large bankroll to buy one, all those laws did was create a class system of haves and have nots. In fact in the 1920s you could pick up a machine gun and a case of dynamite from a hardware store, and yet the gun crime was much lower go figure.

As for a revolution, I can say with confidence as an Iraq veteran who did two tours that there is no way our army could fight and win a guerrilla war war here in America. We failed miserably in Iraq, despite being able to outgun our opposition in every engagement, and Iraq only has 1/6th the population of the United States and is not much larger than a large state area wise. Plus if you felt that you had to fight to protect your right to life and liberty, would you rather fight with a rifle or rocks?

David Jackson
David Jackson

“Snell apparently does not understand that the second amendment, like most constitutional amendments, is not without limitations.”
-Art

Yeah, and the limitations have to be in line with the intent of the 2nd Amendment and not violate any other part of the Constitution in the process. Something many who want certain laws enacted do not get Art. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own arms in common use (2nd Amendment and US vs. Heller), with a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia (2nd Amendment and US vs. Miller). Nobody can be denied this right without due process of the law (5th Amendment), and you cannot force people to register or present for inspection upon demand their legally owned weapons (4th Amendment) because it would make you feel safer. Understand this Art?

“If Snell wants to argue about having guns to protect against some imagined government tyranny, sorry too late. The government's arsenal is far greater than what citizens possess and if they choose to do battle, the citizen will lose.”
-Art

Since when do oppressive governments use the total military arsenal to enforce tyranny? Do you make this statement based upon your historical knowledge of insurgencies in colonial America, Algeria, Vietnam, Syria, Sub-Saharan Africa, Israel/Palestine, etc? Do you make this assumption based upon your personal training and ground combat experience fighting a counter insurgency fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’m guessing not. Tyranny is enforced with a Gestapo, and Gestapo are susceptible to individual small arms.

“Just look at how unpopular many of the legislators that voted against the most recent bill have become.”
-Art

To who? Did you not read Snell’s article on who was and is contacting our elected officials? I already emailed Grassley and told him thanks for not caving to emotional BS. We do need “sensible” laws, unfortunately in the wake of tragedy nothing they were proposing was sensible, even if it was being sold at face value as being so.

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

"They (liberals/democrats) declare freedom is what you have left over after the State has made its demands."

Thanks Adam for the great one-liner. I'll be using it later. [beam]

Alan Dobbs
Alan Dobbs

One of the best articles I've ever read, and for anyone who says that "rights are not absolute". When at the end of an amendment it states in clear and precise language that this right "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" It most CERTAINLY is 100% ABSOLUTE. If you read the Constitution you will notice that some other amendments do have prerequisites, but the 2nd Amendment does not.

KiWI
Kimberly Mathes

So you were doing great until all the generalizing made it all fall apart. I'm anti-gunner raised in Detroit where I often could hear gunshots from my bed at night. My husband is a gun-toting, CCW-carrying Arizonan. It'd be so great if the world were just this simple: "Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics." But it's not that simple. I don't reject any of those things in anyone else, much less my very own husband. Pretty much, now you're the one labeling and stereotyping. That's too bad. The over-generalizing is running contrary to what started out as a thoughtful case, and making this your last column doesn't excuse the poor thinking.

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America."

We sane people don't trust gun nuts because you are irrational when it comes to expressing your points. Example above.

90 percent of Americans support nearly universal background checks. This would expand already existing and Constitutional background checks that occur in gun shops to gun shows and internet purchases. This would help prevent some criminals and some mentally unstable people from getting firearms. It isn't unconstitutional as background checks do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, the United States is a democratic constitutional federal republic. I don't really get the semantic BS that right-wingers employ with describing the type of government we have. No, we don't have a pure democracy but we vote for those who represent us making the process a democratic one. In any case, the words don't matter. We elect people to represent us and when 90 percent of us aren't being represented--and not on a matter of civil rights or human rights--then the constitutional republic is not doing its job properly.

Trust me, if it were the other way around, the right-wing would be howling mad and associating Obama with Hitler. Oh, wait...

boogie
John Dodge

This is laden with whining and self-pity. Most gun control advocates have not maligned law-abiding gun owners or said they are stupid. He's paints gun control advocates with a broad brush using the term anti-gun. Many gun control advocates are gun owners. The majority of NRA members wanted expanded background checks. The author exhibits more than little paranoia....the implied threats are not exactly subtle.

And he makes the media the issue when the focus should be the casualties in the Texas fertilizer plant accident and the Boston bombings. BTW, when you publish something, you are the media, too.

RLEmerysgt
Rlee Emerysgt

One can always see how true an article is at how nasty the otherside reacts, and the anti gun freaks are indeed NASTY about it LOL![beam]

Here are some more facts you antis cant refute!

So explain again oh unelightened one, what exactly these new laws would do to force the bad guys to obey the law.

You pay them a bribe?

You walk them into the store by force?

You trade them drugs or slave girls for the sex trade?

You start impaling them when they are caught?

You increase the penalties, LOL?

You make it so that they wouldn’t want to steal?

You repeal Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment to make the background check apply to bad guys as a prosecutable crime? (self incrimination thingy, you should read up on that eh)

Come on, its real easy, the BATF refuses to prosecute more than 1% of those they rejected since 1997 (1.83 mil rejected).

The BATF refuses to do ANYTHING about the 95.52% of bad guys who don’t even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with (50% theft, 50% family straw buy)

The BATF hasn’t caught ANYONE using a fake id.

The BATF doesn’t catch ANYONE straw buying.

The BATF refuses to allow civilian access to the NICS for private sales.

Did you have anything in the new law that will force the BATF to do their job and prosecute more than 1%, uh NOPE.

Did you do anything to help the BATF detect fake identification used to pass the background check, uh NOPE.

Did you do anything to force the BATF to allow civilian use of NICS for private sales, uh NOPE.

Is straw buying for bad guys illegal per current law, YEP.

Does participation in a gun show void per current state & federal gun control laws, NOPE!

Is it illegal to sell a handgun to a person in another state without going through an FFL Licensed dealer in that persons state per current law, YES IT IS.

Does a firearm offered for sale on the internet required to be sent to a licensed FFL for final purchase per current law, YES IT IS.

Did you force the Govt. to fund & resource mental health reporting to NICS (only 2.812 mil records of 23.15 mil severely mentally ill), NOPE.

Did you know as of Mar 2013 the BATF only had 2,095,144 felons, indicted or with restraining orders in the NICS database, Yet there are over 1.043 mil people wanted on open felony warrants and over 2.7 mil current prisoners, not to mention those who have been released. Which by reality means maybe not even half of felons are in the NICS database.

So explain again, why a sane person, would blindly accept more laws, piled on top of laws already not enforced to begin with, and expect a miracle to occur?

You have a magic fairy wand and sprinkle some magic fairy dust to make that wish come true?

Is the concept of fixing the failures to enforce the existing laws first too much of an intellectual challenge for you mentally deficients to grasp?

RLEmerysgt
Rlee Emerysgt

Standard anti gun freak attempt to portray they have the numbers of supporters, when facts prove otherwise.

Like the 2011 Gallup poll which shows 47% of households in the US have a gun, and as per US Census in 2011 that is 114.3 mil households with 2.5 people per household.

Care to do the math, (114.3 mil x 47%) x 2.5 = well over 100 mil people, and thats just what the govt. admits to existing.

That doesnt even count all the false responses that the Gallup poll now receives to that qeustion. See the Gallup poll, has been asking the same simple question since 1973, do you have a gun in the home.

Doubt me, we dare you to go to a gun show, and do a survey of how many people actually would say no, when they actually have a gun in the home. Something about the growing lack of trust they have in an anonymous govt. worker asking that question since 1994. Geez, wasnt that the most recent large gun grab occurred, yeah, it was!

IYou should have went to Houston and take that poll as all those people walk in the door at the NRA convention, if you had the guts, since you by your statement above, clearly dont have the brains!

Yeah, so sad 900 people polled doesnt = 90% of the public, it only = .00000029% of the public, its that Kenyesian math thing you antis are so good at as Kenyesian math is only understood/believed to be true by people with a combination of less than 40 IQ, mental illness, and severe illicit narcotics abuse.

Then again since the poll was worded not to provide the details, and taken in democrat strongholds, their was NOOOOOOOOOOOO bias at all, LOL.

A petition was taken by some high schoolers for a sociology class, and they wanted you to sign to ban the number 1 cause of drownings world wide, dihydrogen monoxide, and over 95% of people asked agreed to ban it.

Then after signing it, they were notified they had just banned water, whereupon every single person wanted their name removed from the petition.

Therein is the exact reason why polls have no legal input upon the affirmed rights of citizens of the US. Unless of course one can go to ANY procedure and prove that polls determine our rights instead of a 2/3rd majority in House & Senate then a 3/4 majority of states to pass, get back to us on that eh!

St Louis, April 1st 2013, gun control rally, didn’t get 50 people, imagine that!

4/26/13, our nation’s capitol played host to the Great Washington March Against Gun Violence. The organizers, including Moveon, Occupy the NRA and United for Change USA, even convinced Shepard Fairey, creative genius behind the original Obama ‘Hope’ poster, to unveil his new anti-NRA effort there to get things off to a rousing start.

You saw the reports on all the media outlets last night, right? No? Maybe that’s because no one bothered to show up . . .

And by no one, we mean less than 100 people. Media included. The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering fought his way through the throngs to capture a few snaps of that day’s festivities.

That was the follow up to last Sunday 4/22/13 in NYC where Chuck Schummer held a pro gun control rally in NYC, supposedly one of the hotbeds of anti gun supporters, and they couldn’t even get 100 people out of 8 mil of whom supposedly 90% support gun control, really?

5/2/2013, call to gun control rally by Heather Martens of Protect MN, a Blooming Idiot front job at the MN legislature, 10 showed up, uh wheres that 90% eh?

5/4/2013 and we see 20, count them 20 anti gun protesters in front of the NRA convention in Houston, yeah, uh where’s that 90% at eh?

Such a recurring trend, you antis dont have 90%, never did, never will!

RLEmerysgt
Rlee Emerysgt

So sad for you antis, this young man does know what is going on and in fact you should be very, very, very, very frightened if he decides to take those smarts into the political arena, heres to hoping!

Are any of you unknowledgable antis aware of what asymmetrical warfare is and how that applies to ANY insurrection in history! It means guerilla warfare, soft, support targets, like anti gun mouthpieces, or the families of those who order such acts against the citizens.....

See, any who would fight such a tyranny are already resolved to a long, bloody, no holds barred backroom brawl and lets be frank, it wouldn’t be very civil, comprende?

Over 20% of insurrections have succeeded in history, but only people who can read and think for themselves seem to know this!

Taliban and insurgents have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, uh why hasn’t our military and technical might overwhelmed them?

The US civilian population is the most heavily armed of any nation in history to date. 


3 mil active duty military personnel in all 5 branches, 1/3 of which are combat ready, the remainder support. 



30-35 mil ex military personnel in civilian population and all of them have had their skills and memories erased right! 



40% desertion rate in our last civil war and what has been done to change that rate, oh right, nothing. 



US civilians have been desensitized to the unleashing of military firepower on US soil, uh yeah right. 



You can guarantee all military personnel would obey illegal orders to fire upon civilians eh, lol! 


Can you guarantee insurgents wouldn't get to those commanders families, LOL, oh they will.

Lets see, did every see that letter from the 1,100 plus current & former Green Berets tell Obama & the AWB to stick it where the sun don’t shine, LOL! Whose side would they be on were something like a confiscation to occur, LOL!

What about the National Guard unit that wouldn’t disarm law abiding gun owners in Katrina?

How about all those sheriff's, more everyday stating publicly to FOAD on any hints of confiscations, bans or political BS.

We see how effective our border security is letting 12 mil illegal aliens and $50 bil in illicit drugs cross each year across our Mexican border alone.

How about states passing bill's and resolutions to arrest BATF attempting to follow such illegal orders.

We see how effective our border security is letting 12 mil illegal aliens and $50 bil in illicit drugs cross each year across our Mexican border alone. 



Yet you can guarantee township, county, city, state, and federal border control, lol! 



You can guarantee outside forces wouldn’t provide technical and material assistance just as they do today in Iraq & Afghanistan, lol! 



What would be the impact on the economy in the US much less globally were all 3 mil active duty military personnel to be recalled to US soil? 



How many of the anti gun extremists who would initiate such an event would it take being shot to change their minds? 



What makes you think the insurrectionists would fight out in the open, lol!



What makes you think the insurrectionists wouldn’t take out the communists family members as a way to get to them, as frankly, nothing about war is civil.

What makes you think lists of said communists who would initiate such a war are not already made? Review the book "The Gun Grabbers" by Alan Gottlieb, already has a list of the major players of anti gun lunacy. There are already lists of the minor players, sifting around also, see, govt. isn’t the only one who can make, uh, a "No Fly List"

Besides, those who would initiate such an incident have to sleep sometime, drone operators have to go home, etc, etc, etc..



What makes you think the media lap dogs of these socialists Nazi’s wouldn’t be one of the targets, lol!

Have you documented, traced, and controlled every single piece of machine equipment that is capable of building a firearm, lol!



Explain again how one corners a group of people, who unlike our own civil war, are not concentrated in a geographical area like the south, but in every single state, city, township, etc, etc, etc......



How exactly are you going to pay for such an act, oh that’s right, you will be taxed more. 



You really have no clue about what is or is not capable were such a situation to arise. 



Oh so many other technical realities you failed to mention...



You antis commenting on what or wouldnt happen were such a civil war to occur probably shouldn’t comment on things of which you have no clue about, makes you look dumber than you already are.

RLEmerysgt
Rlee Emerysgt

COMPROMISE

In the adult world, the word "COMPROMISE" means that each side in an issue, gives something up they value in order to meet in the middle and resolve the issue.

So the question to the anti's is rather simple 2 parts:

1) what have you given up in compromise that you valued for all the previous 22,417 gun control laws implemented?

2) what right do you value that you intend to give up for these new proposed laws?

Some fantasy made up right doesn't count in the real world, a right affirmed in the BOR and the reason must be measurable in real math and GOVT. evidence and not in some wacked out Kenyesian fantasy math!

Since you antis don’t value the 2A, you can’t lie and say that is what you give up.

After all, if we who are pro-gun give up in compromise the same as anti gun nuts have, which is nothing, how then can we in any sense of the word be called unreasonable?

Love how the antis refuse to compromise and give up anything they value to get gun control.

In fact history has show everyone how words, the freedom of speech, can be abused. We see how religious beliefs have been the greatest intiator of wars in all of history, one person god having a bigger tallywhacker than the other guys god, over 800 million killed.

Then we see how the next most dangerous idea, based on a collection of words to form a belief called socilaism, has led to over 200 million deaths in the last century or so, because many civilians resisted such attempts.

So based on irrefutable history words and beliefs, allowed by the use of freedom of speech, is the greatest danger to safety of our children.

In the spirit of compromise, we suggest the Antis give upsome of their 1st amendment right.

They would be required to be licensed every 4 years.

They would be open to random inspections by the govt.

They will be required to pay a tax for everytime they use their freedom of speech in a public forum.

A paper work error in their submitting for more use of said right will be construed as a felony.

Letting a family member borrow their portion of that right, will require a background check before they receive permission to exercise their right.

They will not be allowed to lie in their exercise of their right.

Three time offenders will be deemed incurable and jailed for life.

Every different media forum they wish to exercise their right will require government permission, and further taxation.

Any and all electronic devices will be registered and audited at any time the government so chooses.

If one person in a household abuses that right and breaks the law, everyone in that family and household loses their rights and are guilty!

See, you really wouldnt be giving up your right, you would just be infrgined upon a little, this year, a little more the next year, and the year after, and the year after.

But its for the safety of the children.
[wink]

David Jackson
David Jackson

“We elect people to represent us and when 90 percent of us aren't being represented--and not on a matter of civil rights or human rights--then the constitutional republic is not doing its job properly.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, funny this wasn’t your argument when Obama-care/tax was being voted on, when did it have majority support? Do you know what the word Hypocrite means?
Regardless if there were 100% of the public in support of something they cannot pass a law that’s unconstitutional, and shouldn’t pass a law that’s not effective just because it was seen as popular. That's the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic.

Not to mention it was 87% of those polled (not 90% of the entire country) according to the single news poll you “insane” anti-“gun nuts” keep bringing up. That does not mean the majority of Americans support anything. There are several other trusted polls out there to show how disingenuous that “data” is.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/12/gun_debate_highlights_voter_distrust_of_government_117925.html
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/04/remember-those-claims-that-90-of.html

Look at the ratio of reactions to this article Rob. Now, was the Senate failure to pass anything a product of the NRA buying votes or do you think our elected officials got the same reaction when they were receiving letters, e-mails, and phone calls from people concerning bad gun control laws? Manchin-Toomey was written poorly, regardless of good support for background checks on the slim portion of online sales that don’t already have them and at gun shows. Expanded background checks wouldn’t have prevented Newtown even though the President shamelessly used those families to push the Admin’s anti-2nd Amendment agenda.

“Trust me, if it were the other way around, the right-wing would be howling mad and associating Obama with Hitler. Oh, wait...”
-Rob Stone

They must have learned it from all the clear thinking rational arguments from the left-wing associating Bush with Hitler.

cindyks
Cindy Morrison

You say, "The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now." Where is the "we" when it's all or nothing with you?

If we changed everything in order to be trusted by you, then we would BE you.

Referring to people as anti-gun when I don't know anyone who is truly anti-gun tells me that you don't want to mend fences. Gun... Anti-Gun... there's no in-between in the words, when there's a world of in-between in real life.

Almost everyone I know who is a gun owner is a "caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being" until it comes to the discussion of guns. Then a flaming wall of impenetrable fire shoots up in front of that "caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being."

"And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years..." - what kind of a statement is that? People who don't fit into your "gun people" category don't serve their communities? Does the "it seems" addition give you an out when millions of people prove the statement wrong?

I have NEVER heard anyone say that only the police and militia should own guns. I'm sure a faction of people believe this, but not the majority. I have also never heard anyone who has served our country in the military called (or thought of as) a "pariah." That's simply not true, and it's those kinds of beliefs that keep people at odds.

The first amendment is not absolute. There are limitations placed upon it. And how tiring it is to hear "second amendment, second amendment, second amendment, second amendment, second amendment" over and over and over again with nothing in between?

You don't trust the people you label as anti-gun? Why should the "anti-gun" people trust you? I saw the Obama Zombie doll that appeared at a booth at the NRA convention. I heard the rhetoric. I'm as tired of "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" as you are of listening to the "90 percent" and "common sense laws."

And no matter what you want to believe, our forebears could not have anticipated today's weaponry when they created the second amendment.

RLEmerysgt
Rlee Emerysgt

When you get to 22,417 laws that control the first amendment, then get back to us eh?

1718 Puckle Gun 1.25" rifle with an 11 round rotary drum, capable of 63 rounds fired per minute..

1757 Ferguson rifle, a breech loader capable of 3 to 6 times the rate of fire of the standard musket....

1789 Giarondoni Air Rifle used on the Lewis & Clarke expedition used a 20 round magazine....

So spare us the founding fathers didnt anticipate future technological advances in weapons much less anything, how stupid...

So the question still stands, why do you antis insist the law abiding should be punished for the actions of the few bad guys because of your irrational and unsubstantiated fears?

Everyone,

Thank you all for the kind words, compliments and yes, even the criticisms. I appreciate it all, and while I obviously disagree with those of you who are on the anti side, at least you're here talking about it. As a columnist I understand better than most that it can take guts to put your name on an opinion and send it out into the world. I respect that as much as I respect and love ALL of our civil rights. I only ask that you respect the Second Amendment as much as you obviously respect the First. Maybe semi-automatic rifles didn't exist in 1790, but neither did this website, or Twitter and Facebook. Think about that for awhile.

If anyone wishes to discuss my column further, I ask that you contact me at my ISU e-mail address, bbsnell@iastate.edu, from now on. My tenure at the Daily is through now and I can't be sure how long I'll have access to this account. In fact, this will probably end up being my final post on the website from here. Warning though: My inbox is receiving around one e-mail every couple minutes on average, so it may take me time to get back to you. I will get back to you eventually though, even if just to acknowledge you.

Probably a better way to reach me would be via Facebook (also bbsnell) or Twitter (Barry_Snell). I've been replying to comments made there much faster than e-mail I think. Facebook and Twitter lend themselves to speed, I guess.

If you want to debate and discuss instead of just send a compliment and move on, I respectfully ask that you don't give me huge comments to reply to. As I said, I'm being flooded with messages so I just don't have the time to spend 45 minutes getting back to you. So keep your disagreeing points brief, and I'll address them as quickly as I can and in kind. I'll friend anyone who sends me a request, and you can talk to me right on my own Facebook if you like--so long as you're civil. If you violate any of the points I made in my column, you're done. I won't be called a murderer, insurrectionist, domestic terrorist, or anything else but a good American citizen. Period.

Of course, for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of you who are giving me positive feedback, you doubly have my sincerest thanks. Of all the several hundred e-mails I've received, only TWO have been negative. And as you can see below, most of the comments on the Internet have been positive and supportive as well.

Thanks again to all of you for making this the most read thing ever published in the Iowa State Daily. With your help, not only did we set the record, but we flat out blew it away--and the page views continue to rise. You have my eternal gratitude for making my departure from the Daily positive and rewarding. Opinion Editor Michael Belding, who was instrumental in making this happen, appreciates the active response too. Creating and stimulating public discourse is the highest duty and compliment any newspaper writer and editor could ever hope for, and this experience will be one I remember with fondness forever.

Farewell to you all. I'll see you out there.

RealtorEHS
Eric Schulz

Thank You Sir and Well Done! You hit the nail on the head!

Cletus O'Bannon
Cletus OBannon

Your prose is dead on accurate. Sadly those of us that get it, those of us on the side of the Constitution are the only ones that will see the truth as you have written it. I just submitted your prose to a community group I attend... used to attend, and the vitrol from the anti's was too much... so much that they banned my account.

The sad reality is we will never be able to have a true intellectual discourse on this topic. The left will never accept the idea that their premise was false in the first place. They will continue to push until one day we the people rise up and say enough with force.

And maybe that's what they want. I would hope that any rational sane person would be willing to avoid such a conflict... but given the track record of intelligence displayed by the left... I don't think so.

Paul
Paul Carnahan

you may want to research what percentage of gun crime is perpetrated by liberals.
research the number of mass shootings that were committed by liberals, professed liberal supporters, or the children of liberals.

Chris dornier, and the boston bombers were avid obama supporters...

Kyle
Kyle Blank

Very well-written. However, civil war would be very bad. There are plenty of ways to go about resisting a tyrannical government, if it ever came to that, without engaging in actual armed resistance, such as peaceful civil resistance. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation. Civil war would likely destroy the country and result in a real tyrant taking over, as civil war almost always leads to despotism. Armed resistance should always be seen only as a very very last resort. If our current government seeks to take our guns, if there is a force big enough for an armed resistance, I say instead just march them into Washington as one big peaceful protest, that would get their attention!

The Second Amendment also isn't just about protecting against a tyrannical government, it is about protecting one's fundamental right to self-defense (which John Locke argued the right to resist an oppressive government is part of). Right to self-defense is not something groups like the NRA made up as the gun control proponents claim, it is something that has been written about by Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Charles Montisquieu, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Sir William Blackstone (whose "Commentaries" formed the cornerstone for the development of American law), etc...it is a concept that also goes back to England and the common law.

For all the hemming about how the Second Amendment is supposedly obsolete (it isn't, as a people can very much stand up to a tyrannical government in modern times, but peaceful resistance is what you try initially), a lot of these same people vigorously defend the First Amendment, but yet our First Amendment also is considered nutty by people in other free countries, where their governments regularly ban and control speech that would be unheard of for the government here. Now if a person from such a country said an American must be paranoid to defend the First Amendment the way we do because government controlling speech some doesn't lead to tyranny, well while it may not immediately lead to tyranny, defending it doesn't make one paranoid. It just means one believes strongly in that right.

Just the same, defending the aspect of the Second Amendment regarding it being a check on tyranny does not mean one thinks that the United States is on the verge of tyranny either. But no one can predict the future, and if it happened, it prevents the government from having a monopoly on force.

In addition, to a lot of people, the very idea of the U.S. government becoming tyrannical seems very remote. It doesn't occur to them that the reason it seems so remote is precisely BECAUSE of how suspicious Americans tend to be of the government, both left and right. The Left are suspicious of the government regarding police power and national security, hence all the screaming about the Patriot Act, wiretapping, Guantanomo, stop-and-frisk in NYC, and so forth. And the Right are suspicious of government regarding economic power, government agencies, and so forth, hence all the screaming that the government cannot mandate a person purchase something.

kmchugh
Kevin McHugh

An excellent editorial, and I hope to read more from Mr Snell as he graduates and moves on. I hope this receives wide dissemination, but fear you will end up preaching to the choir. I have tried several times to debate the issue with "anti-gunners" to no avail. They consistently refuse to read any supporting documentation. In fact, they refuse to read anything that does not agree with their predetermined notions and narrative.

whamprod
Chris Smith

THANK YOU!!! This article expresses the frustrations of being a modern gun owner in today's culture better than any I've ever read before. I am 60 years old, and I have been trying to warn my fellow Americans that armed resistance is exactly where anti-gun people are pushing us, and they are willfully blind to it. They think that because THEY willingly laid down their 2nd Amendment right, that the rest of us will too.

Just once, following a multiple killing with a firearm, I would like to see gun owners treated with the same deference we accord to members of the Muslim religion when one of their own commits a heinous crime against humanity. We are constantly reminded that we should not lump all of Islam in with the depraved perpetrator of a public bombing. And those people are right. We should not do so. We should not insist that ALL Muslims give up Islam because of the crimes of a few.

Wouldn't it be fair to then expect the same treatment for the nation's gun owners? If, for example, if Diane Feinstein successfully pushed to make Islam illegal in the wake of the Boston bombing, wouldn't American Muslims—right so—take the free exercise of their religion underground and begin to actively resist, by violence if necessary, the despotic government which trampled on their First Amendment guarantee? How could they continue to call themselves among the faithful if they did not?

But, with good reason, we do not do that. We accord Muslims their First Amendment right to the freedom of religious conscience, because we believe that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Unfortunately, from the Christian perspective, liberals treat the "free exercise" clause with the same contempt that they do the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd Amendment, but that's another subject.)

The Constitution says what it says, and the further our government's actions and the knowledge of our anti-gun citizens depart from it, the further our society and culture go off the rails. The author's bleak warning about civil violence as a resort against anti-gun oppression is very real. Anti-gun people ignore it at their peril. I have been warning people of the possibility of it for the past 2 or 3 years, and surprisingly, men and women who I regard to be perfectly sane do not look at me like my hair is on fire. Instead, they quietly, sadly, nod their heads and agree. As a nation, we are closer to this catastrophe than we've been before, going back to the end of the Civil War.

There is a record, even in modern American history, of men with guns saving their government from despotism. Go to Wikipedia for the details of the "Battle of Athens" in 1946. They had to actually steal those guns from the local National Guard armory.

Thank you again, Mr. Snell for such an excellently written piece. I have bookmarked it for future reference.

KLove
Kathryn Marschalk Loving

Thank you! Excellent, well written, and full of knowledge. I was beginning to lose faith in common sense and the fact that our rights are dwindling away in front of our faces from our own design. I am a former police officer and what I saw on the streets shows exactly your points. Many citizens with guns in their purses or on their hips fended off robberies at salons, grocery stores, and hotels in my town. Some were customers, some were employees. We also saw a resurgence of the Good Samaritan after our state passed the open carry law (Wyoming). No matter how I tried to fight off gun control, no one would listen because I was a cop and they assumed it was just because I loved guns. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with our Constitutional rights, our freedom, our safety, and the right to defend ourselves against evil. The guns are not evil. The people that use them for wrongdoing are evil. And we have to stand against them one at a time, on a case by case basis as they violate the law. We don't take away forks when our kids get obese.

TxBullDude
Ray Nations

I wish someone would post a link to the poll where 100% of the american people were asked if they supported background checks. Anti-gun rights people keep saying 90% of americans want background checks. I was not asked and no one I have talked to in the last few months was asked either. So where and when was this poll done?

steve-gregg
Steve Gregg

Barry,

You saved your best for last. It's heartening to see the positive response, to see the politically correct atmosphere has not turned every student brain to mush.

The gun debate is not about whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms or whether guns are good. It does and they are.

What the gun debate is really about is about the Lefty tribe objecting to the Righty tribe. To the Left, guns are totems of the enemy tribe, so they want them smashed, criminalized, gone. This is part of a larger struggle the Left is waging on the American people to criminalize anything it doesn't like, right down to the size of the cup you drink your Coke from. Deep down in their heart of hearts, the Lefties are fascists who want to strip all power from the people and make them all dependent on an all powerful state. In other words, they want to destroy America and its democracy.

Keep up the good fight, fellow right wing nuts! As for the Left: Molon labe!

Bryan
Bryan Simmons

"If we changed everything in order to be trusted by you, then we would BE you. "

You don't have to change everything, just learn that unless someone actually violates the right of others, then their business (including owning guns), is just none of yours.

Learn to live and let live then I (and pretty much most other gun owners) could care less about your position on guns.

egusmank2012
Ryan Kemp

Bryan, you still miss the point of the article. Although all aspects of why we don't trust anti-gunners were conveyed, the article states clearly that if met in a middle ground, something could be done. Without the blanket views of key (those who participate in talks, or interview), we may get somewhere.

dhenry
Diane Henry

The big thing that I think is missing from this piece and many pro-gun articles and columns is the fact that there is an irresponsible and frankly idiotic few on the pro-gun side that paint a blanket view for all pro-gun people as simple minded idiots. Wayne Lapierre is definitely one of the main culprits of shooting the pro-gun argument out of the water with his comments that get lots of press.

For example the 5 year old that shot his 2 year old sister and killed her with a gun that is specifically marketed to children. It is not that the 5 year old can't start learning about guns at a young age. I am fine with responsible gun ownership. What I am not fine with is the parents of these two children not adequately locking up the guns when they are not in adequate use. Accident or not, that gun should have been locked up when not in it's intended use. Five year olds are not mature enough to understand the consequences of these types of actions.

Another example is the 8 year old from Johnston that brought the gun to school. Why did the child even have access? Now DHS and the cops are investigating and all bets are that the kid will be kicked out of school for this stunt. Why did the 8 year old have access?

Point being, there are responsible gun owners and there are irresponsible gun owners. There is vile rhetoric on both sides. The problem as I see it is the responsible adults in the "room" on both sides have not come to the table (with the exception of Manchin Toomey) to hash out their differences in a responsible manner. Meanwhile the gun-nuts make all pro-gun and all NRA members seem like bumbling idiots when it is probably just a select few (leadership) that paint the blanketing perception..

So can the adults in the room come to the table and compromise?[wink]

David Jackson
David Jackson

Diane what do the incidents you brought up have to do with Wayne LaPierre?

Bawston
Kevin Mullen

Well put! Great take on the issue. (While I agree with the premise of this article I would like to point out that the Boston bombings injured nearly 300.) Not that more (or less) tragic should be the basis for media coverage decisions. The media has clearly been co-opted and are no longer the 4th estate. The 'public airwaves' are being used to promote agendas rather than educate and inform the viewers. Worse yet we clearly pick our news outlets based on their bias. It's happened, it's true and we all know it's true. And the media is not furnishing us with news, they're furnishing us with 'stories' and 'features' that further promote their agenda. The media is complicit in perpetuating this false discussion.

Pilgrim
Howard Kuhns

Our government wants us to believe that we should only have guns for hunting. And why are they considering giving arms to the Syrian rebels?

MaterDei
Michael Wilson

Amazing piece of work. You must have spent a huge amount of time on this. I, for one, will bookmark it and use it often. Thank you!

Jason
Jason Gillett

I read your piece and found in it an all too common tactic. You argue with yourself sir. You construct these anti-gunners (as you call them) and then you dismantle your own construction. I would have to call myself an anti gunner althought I don't subscribe to your characterization of them as necessairly an accurate characterization of me. But I am here and willing to be a live person in a discussion about guns. I don't want to be a troll, I simply want to explore the issues. I will say things that might get you over excited - that has been my experience thus far. But I will never intentionally insult you as a person. I recognize there are many people in this Country that do not share my beliefs, but I don't necessairly withold from them my trust. I depend on the words of an individual to define the level of trust I extend to someone. You seem passionate and intelligent, and I am curious. I will be respectful, but I would like to discuss topics that you might find alarming. Let me know and we can look into things, but I am tired of trying to have this conversation with fans of your position. I would love to discuss this with someone prepared to defend the position in real time against a real person that happens to have a different opionion than you. Are you game, or are you busy? I have to go to Mother's Day lunch with the family right now, but there is no time limit on this for me so we can casually address eachother's comments and concerns as best fits our schedule. Can you trust me long enough to exercise your rhetoric against a real person?

David Jackson
David Jackson

I'll bite Jason.

Ed Crowell
Edward Crowell

Jason, I'll thow my two cents in there as well. I've had to admit to constructing the anti-gun argument from what I've seen argued. And I still don't get it. I mean that in all seriousness, i cannot make up an anti-gun argument that makes sense to me.

So I'd love to see one presented so I don't have to be in the position of presenting what I think it is. I've reduced the outline to this:

1. What is the problem you seek to solve or improve? Please be specific as to what is or is not included. This is to establish where we are now.

2. What is the goal? How would you define success or improvement. This is to establish where you want to go.

3. What is the proposed solution? That is, how are you proposing to get from "here" to "there", problem to goal? It's assumed, because of the topic, gun control will be part of that solution, but so many things are "gun control" I think it's important to be clear exactly what proposals are being made.

4. What is the expected mechanism of how the proposed method is expected to work? How does the solution get us from here to there? Please be specific and if using any numbers or statistics, cite sources which can be verified and evaluated for comparison to other sources (publicly available as well). If using a logical chain of events, please detail each step and identify any assumptions depended upon.

Since I'm trying to avoid inserting any of my own bias, the outline is as vague as I can make it while still giving a framework of some kind.

I have to admit, these are my questions, what I think I'm missing from the gun control position. My own position, much in favor of gun rights, depends in no way on statistics or crime rates and i find them largely irrelevant. Interesting, but only as a side effect. I'll post that separately if anyone cares to read it, but I don't want to end up with two threads of debate intertwined (your gun control argument and my pro gun argument). I've made that mistake before.

Merrick
Merrick VanLandingham

I have been up to my eyeballs in the pro 2-A fight for nearly 20 years now. It is of rare occurrence I read a piece that I feel I could have written myself. Your article is spot on, and hits at the salient points of we the silent majority. I have shared it with my friends who are sharing it with their friends. Just for grins I kicked in a few extra $$ to SAF on your behalf today. We always speak truth to power, and you have done so here. Wherever your future endeavors take you, keep fighting the good fight. When you hold the big microphone, you are speaking by proxy for many of us.

johnp234
John Petergal

"Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today."

Only a conservative would state that people who watch the news are less informed than those who don't. And yes, Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. And if the earth were round, we'd fall off, right into the Sun.

David Jackson
David Jackson

@ John Petergal
Ha! That’s rather amusing John. Only a radical liberal would be fooled into thinking that watching the current mainstream media made you well informed or a recipient of the whole story. Snell wrote a well thought out editorial and even pointed out the disparity of the facts vs what we were all hearing on most news outlets. You respond with a quick bias jab, accompanied by no examples to back it up, and arrogantly compare him and conservatives in general to flat earthers. I’m pretty sure we all know who is drinking the cool-aid on this one.

Grantword
Grant Wordsen

This may be the best essay I've yet read on the topic, and that includes a bunch I've written myself.

The anti-gun movement feeds on lies, distortions, hypotheticals and emotion. There can be no common ground with them until they stop attacking the people they keep demanding be "treasonable."

redmanrt
Bob Redman

The anti-gun people in the higher echelons of government (demothgs) are simply those who dream of arbitrary power and "permanent majorities" and rightly regard us gun owners as obstacles to be overcome with any and all means.

The run-of the mill anti-gun people derive vicarious pleasure from the success of the demothgs and identify with them. They also dream of the little portion of power that will fall to them should the demothgs succeed.

Therefore, these people whom I call lbtrds can be moved by no rational argument, but rather only force and/or the credible threat of it.

redmanrt
Bob Redman

The anti-gun people in the higher echelons of government are those who dream of arbitrary power and "permanent majorities" and rightly regard us gun owners as obstacles to be overcome with any and all means.

The run-of the mill anti-gun people derive vicarious pleasure from the success of the power addicts and identify with them. They also dream of the little portion of power that will fall to them should the destroyers of the Republic succeed.

Therefore, these people whom I call can be moved by no rational argument, but rather only force and/or the credible threat of it.