Have y'all been following the recent attacks on Jim Zumbo following his postings concerning the AR-15?

I've found it interesting that every other hunting or shooting forum I post on has had responses to Zumbo's statements.

Here a link to one:

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=513756

For a board that is concerned with those guns least likely to be targeted by anti-gun organizations, what are your opinions on the restriction of semi-automatic, plastic rifles and shotguns?

Todd

Todd:

Ill address more later, I dont have time to create a well-crafted thoughtful essay. Right now I am writing a technical report for a client, and therefore must be brief here.

Suffice it to say - They will come get the Purdeys and Elsies after they have sucessfully gotten the AR's, the plastic shotguns, and black rifles. And the "battle" rifles such as Mauser 98's, Enfields of various Marks, and 1903 Springfields- after all those rifles were created only as battlefield killing machines... and oh my they shoot POWERFUL cartridges capable of killing more than a mile away and penetrating body armor to boot.

The point is , a gun banner can ALWAYS come up with a reason why YOUR particular arm is a threat to the public safety. The reason is, ultimately, some people DO NOT like firearms, and believe that having deadly force in private hands is a bad thing. Of course, this flies in the face of practical experience as well as Anglo-Saxon civic culture going back to Magna Charta, but , what the hey, the modern elites who want to create a safe and perfect world, where only the state has power, dont pay much attention to that sort of thing.

The claims that this is to reduce crime is specious, and it is tedious to the extreme to keep having to address it. Gun Control is NOT about crime, as it has never been demonstrated to work, anywhere. My guns , for instance, do not contribute to the crime rate. Why? Because I am not a criminal, therefore, whether I have black rifle or a bazooka, it totally doesnt matter to the crime rate. So- arms in the hands of non-criminals are a non-issue. And criminals will always have guns. Always. Do you think a rapist who is staring at 20 years to life, or a drug dealer who regularly kills his competitors, will be dissuaded by another gun law? Nope, I didnt think so. The only reason the "Restrict them Ban them" cabal makes these ridiculous and unsupportable "crime control" claims, is that there is out there in the general public, a lot of people who think like sheep and cannot reason logically. Or perhaps they are just uncomfortable with the idea that their neighbor is armed. Since they are unwilling to protect themselves, they feel everyone should be in the samje boat - they prefer all sheep be toothless. I would suggest that THAT is a significant and crippling neurotic condition best addressed by professional help, but I am not licensed to practice psychology or psychiatry, so I will remain silent on that one.

The folks who dont like firearms dont care whether or not the arm in question is a two shooter or a muzzleloader or a black rifle. For example, several years ago, there was a serious legislative move in Ohio to ban the US 1863 Rifle-Musket as an "assault weapon". It was a military arm, and mounted a bayonet. It didnt succeed, but folks, that is a stark example. This is NOT about crime, its about CONTROL. In order to be logically consistent, these folks must have them all, someday. Your Purdey and your Elsie are no different. It is just easier, right now, to attack .50 Caliber rifles, black guns, sidearms.

Like most Fabians, these folks are very very patient. They figure accomodationists like Zumbo will roll over and give them, piece by piece, in the name of compromise, everything they want. Oddly enough, though, the reasonable compromise only ratchets one direction- toward more and more and more restrictions.
The accomodationists say "We will give you black rifles, plastic pistols, 11 shot auto-pistols ( here insert a gun the accomodationst doesnt really care for) , if you promise to leave my double barrel, classic Colt SAA, muzzle-loader ( here insert the accomodationists favorite hobby or using gun) alone."

The Feinsteins and Schumers of the world say "Yess indeed. we will agree to that." The bill is passed, horns blow, we are all safer and crime plummets 30% as those evil guns are destroyed. But that isnt what happens. Nothing happens except for some types of guns are now proscribed. And then, next session, Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy and the anti-liberty lobby are back again. Wanting more. More. More. Always.

Lastly, the Second Amendment describes a "Right" , not a privilege based on someones "discretion". As soon as a "Right" becomes "discretionary, it's no longer a "right", but a privilege. And privileges last only as long as the King thinks we should have them.

By golly- I could'a SWORE that the first Ten Amendments were called the "Bill of Rights"... not the "Bill of Privileges".

I call attention to my signature line, and close for now.

Regards

GKT

Zumbo's self immolation was certainly amazing. He's done. The shooting industry is running from him like a ticking time bomb.

The state of affairs of our sport in many other countries clearly shows where attitudes like Zumbo's invariably lead. I've never owned a semi-auto rifle or shotgun - just never been my cup of tea. However, we can't be selective about guarding our rights. If we don't present a united front, we're done.

...and as soon as it becomes a privilege, it's gone.

There's site that has his appology. http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/02/jim-zumbo-apologizes.html

Worth a read if you took the time to read his condemnation of the AR. The guy sounds sincere. I'll give him another chance to stand with the pro-gun crowd. No sense making another enemy. Better to make a closer, more reliable friend of Zumbo. Didn't you ever change your opinion on something of importance?

This site has both, his original blog and his recant.
http://www.huntingsense.com/the-jim-zumbo-controversy/

I will surely anger many of you with my comments, but I find myself agreeing with most of Jim Zumbo's orginal statements.The assualt-type weapons look to me like they are designed to spew a lot of ammo at a target. I believe this is consistent with their original purpose as a military firearm. I have a hard time embracing this kind of weapon as a sporting arm. Please follow my thinking on this. I am not saying these guns should be outlawed, but I cannot understand a good sporting use for these guns. The kind of firepower they represent goes against the grain of my sporting upbringing.

I think the public views these guns as weapons designed to put a lot of lead on to a target. They associate these guns with the assault-type purposes that they were designed for. It is no accident that these guns are referred to as "assault weapons." My point is that by embracing this kind of firepower as a sporting arm, we may be cutting off our own noses in spite of ourselves. People running around in the woods dressed like Rambo and toting assualt weapons does not endear hunting to the general public and can easily contribute to just more land being locked away from hunters forever.

I believe that we have to remember that we need to be good ambassadors for our sport. Associating hunting with this kind of weapon will not help the sport of hunting.

Many of you will strongly disagree with me, but I hope you won't feel the urge to attack me as a decent person because I believe differently than you. I am still a hunter and a lover of our sport. I just think that these weapons do not serve our sport well. I had more respect for Jim Zumbo with his original position. I kind of feel his retraction looked like a "cave in" and I had a hard time following his reasoning for reversing his first statement. Being tired just seemed a little weak to me and not much of a support for his reversal.

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Simularly to Jim Zumbo I have hunted for years(on a smaller scale) and have for that time only used "sporting" guns. Unlike Jim Zumbo I have no national audience and since few if any pay any attention to me I doubt if I were to get one I'd have it much longer than 15 minutes. I have never shot an AR15 or an AK, but If someone owns one and uses it legally, morally and with courtesy I have little problem with it. I might grumble, but as I've said my audience is small and educated. Jim Zumbo should be similarly aware of his audience. Perhaps this incident will make him more aware, that his hat band has become to tight and his hot air valve is clogged. Other wise I think he'll be just fine.

Kurt

Greg:

If that is just your hasty scribblings, I cannot wait to see what a well crafted essay will be. I have never seen my personal position more accurately or eloquently stated. Thank you.


As far as Mr. Zumbo, I cannot believe a man who's living is apparently dependant on the gun industry would make such a statement, even if he does believe it. It is career suicide.

His sponsors are running for cover, dropping him like the proverbial hot potato. One of his TV show sponsors has withdrawn their sponsorship with a statement apologizing to the public for ever supporting Mr. Zumbo. I suspect when it all shakes out the only job in the firearms industry available to Mr. Zumbo will be working for Sara Brady.

Speaking of which, has not anyone noticed that Mr. Brady took a bullet for the President of the United States of America? The man is a national hero, and his loving wife is making a living by parading him around like a circus freak.

Sorry. I'll be good now...

Glenn

"First they came for the Jews and it was not me, then they came for the gypsies and it was not me, then they came for ....." I purchased "assault rifles" in the late '80's when "they" started the black gun garbage because it is my RIGHT. I hardly ever shoot them-too busy with my "Sweet Elsies"- BUT I own them and several battle paks of mil spec ammo. One never knows when a "Katrina" will strike this part of the NC coast. While I hope we never have New Orleans style problems only a fool trust the folks in DC to do the right things.(Don't think so ask the Native Americans!) Besides I am responsible for my safety and that of my family. Jim Zumbo is entitled to his opinion, even if he is off base. Best, Dr. BILL

Mr. Pirie,

I hope you don't consider this an attack, because that is not its intended purpose. I simply disagree with you (although, until recently, I could not say that on this subject), and here's why:

Lots of people enjoy pulling the trigger a lot (and I mean A LOT), and these semi-auto guns to which you refer are great for those people, not to mention their legitimate useage for home defence, etc. As long as they send all that lead those guns were designed to dispense downrange to paper, cans, bottles, etc. or to legal game, who are we (or anybody else for that matter) to say they should not be able to use those tools for that purpose which they enjoy?

The "public" view of those guns is skewed, due in no small part to the media, but also because those of us who hunt tend to want to distance ourselves from the supporters of those guns. I used to be one of those guys, but I'm changing my mind on the whole thing. The gun-ban crowd wants you to have no nice double shotguns, just like it wants the fella down the street to have no ARs. They will not stop at the ARs, and there's no reason to think they will.

The argument, to me at least, is about rights. We have no right to tell the AR owner that he or she should not own or shoot that AR, just as the AR owner has no right to tell us not own or shoot our doubles. I'm afraid that we are all in this thing together, and we'll either make it together, or we'll surely go down together.

Ty

Zumbo's a dumbo. He put himself under bus.

The gentle gunner's discussion of what's a sporting weapon and what's an evil killing machine bum me out. The Second Amendment is about keeping the .gov in check, not deer hunting. Hunting is privilege granted by the government, owning a military rifle is a constitutional right.

From my experience the sort of shooters that tend to make us all look bad are often attracted to such guns which seem "cool." I've also seen them drawn to any gun they can get their hands on. Many of the bolt action surplus rifles are used by these people to fire as fast as possible. Lever actions are also used in the same manner. I for that matter have a 10/22 and can waste vast quantities of ammo with it I even do fire fast at times. However it also happens to be my most accurate rifle at the moment. The kind of people that have fun doing things that make sportsmen look bad are going to do it no matter what they have.

The all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us polarization of public issues is part of our problem. Why should intellectual and integrity standards for a popular sportsman be different from those for political, church or social leaders representing similarly wide ranges of interest as ours every day? I don't have to agree with Mr. Zumbo to make him welcome in my home.

The US isn't the only country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our systems of government representing all the people violate their fine print every day. Canada and the US are in violation of human rights charters with respect to handling prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Bush was recently set down by the US Supreme Court in this respect. Executive fiat fills the loopholes.

The whole stately edifice of our democratic system rests on the inviolable right to dissent. A few years ago our countries went to war with popular consent; today the percentage of support is almost the reverse because publics see national interests in cost of lives with a positive resolution uncertain at best. People change their minds. To deny or diminish that right denigrates our institutions and ourselves.

Bless Canada, the United States and Mr. Zumbo---and let's move on.

Yeti is on target. Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with sporting activities but rather were intended to do with arming the public to protect themselves from a government gone astray.

If an American can't state his beliefs without fear, you might as well chuck all amendments to the Bill of Rights. I may disagree with Mr. Zumbo, but his right to speak out is as valid as mine to bear arms.

Friends:

I for one fully support Zumbo's right to his opinion.It is his absolute right and he should suffer no personal or legal injury for his position. Never the less, we are all accountable for what we say. As for the opinion he has espoused? I just believe it is not only wrong, incorrect,and wrongheaded , but basically illogical. I think he has a flawed understanding of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and, even worse, completely misunderstands human nature when it comes to politicians with an anti-gun agenda.

In classical western ( read "Christian" ) philosophy, objects are not moral, or immoral, they merely "are". It is men who are actors, and men commit "good" or "evil" acts. Only men have morality. It is therefore illogical and anthropomorphic to ascribe to arms ( inanimate objects)a moral coloration. Is a 30 round firearm " evil", but a 10 round firearm " good", or is it merely less evil? Does that make a two-barrel gun "more good"? My carry gun contains 9 rounds. Would it be "more good" if I only carried 7 rounds? If I use my nasty 30 round black rifle to defend my family against a home invasion does that make it " more good" or "less evil"? Would I be "more moral" or more justified if I had used my Ithaca NID for the same pupose, and just reloaded a lot?

Questions such as these, and the logical responses to them demonstrate the silliness of the false " good gun" versus "bad gun" dichotomy.

The false dichotomy "good-gun vs. bad-gun" is a game played by the gun banners, and played well. The intent is to seperate gun owners into small competing tribes, each of which may be defeated in turn. The accomodationists fall right into the hands of our opponents.

As for the use of an AR as a sporting arm? The AR types are now the most common type used for high power rifle competition in this country, not to mention "practical" and "service" rifle competition. In my part of Texas, I see a lot of them on gunracks of pickup trucks, where they do service as " ranch rifles". I know a few coyote hunters who swear by them as well. I cannot believe that Zumbo is not aware of this, but perhaps he is not. Maybe he needs to get out more.

Regards

GKT

I am amazed that Mr. Zumbo is unfamiliar with the current "state of tune" pertaining to AR type rifles and there uses, specifically the Colt clones. There have been numerous articles in the industry rag's extolling the high level of accuracy avavilable in this type of rifle. I guess I just take it for granted that someone in the "business" would have exposure to all the latest trends in hunting and shooting.

Ken

Ed Pirie, your argument falls apart as soon as you assume gun ownership is for sporting purposes only. The anti gunners planted that theme. The Second Amendment does not say the right to possess arms suitable for sporting purposes. The Second Amendment is intended to counter balance a government that thinks it would like to get too oppressive. The Second Amendment secures our liberty by giving us the means to successfully resist if required. Why should the government be trusted with machineguns if the people (from whom the right to govern comes) aren't to be trusted with the same. I would love to shake down the body guards covering Schummer, Clinton, Kennedy and Rosie O'Donnell and see just what firepower they feel entitled to for protection.

Yeah, but that was then, this is now. Anyone fantasizing about defending himself against government with an AK47 or AR16 is deluding himself. In Iraq the effective insurgents are using IEDs, car bombs and remotes. The brave fools with piddly assault rifles who go mano a mano against Blackhawks, armored vehicles and modern troops win nothing but a quick trip to meet Allah and their 72 virgins.

In 1775, there was little difference in weaponry between Yanks and redcoats. Chinese junk assault rifles may be okay to defend against the occasional midnight intruder, but today's 'armed citizen' is no match for the professional soldier.

Ed Pirie - No sporting purpose for an AR-15? An AR will work on a groundhog with a 52 gr. BTHP. Plus, if you shoot NRA hipower that's what you shoot. Don't let your highminded sense of sportsmanship prejudice you against those who might shoot with something other than a Parker or granddaddy's Model 73. We either hang together or hang seperately. Jim Zumbo deserves the spanking he is getting; obviously, when he's hit in the pocketbook his opinion changes. I can hear his wife now, "Honey, you better put those words back in your mouth so's we can make the mortgage payment." Cheers.

Ed Blake
Manakin, Va.

JM - big difference in whether USA soldiers would actually fire on an armed citizenry or whether an unarmed citizenry would ever rise. There is a good bit of modern evidence that fellow citizen soldiers will not attack citizens if the citizens have the means to make a fight of it. Do you have some reason to suppose that they use only IED's etc. in Iraq and no small arms? Do you suppose that Americans are incapable of making IED's if needed? Like it or not, mano-a-mano is still the common demonimator and that means small arms are still important.

Rocketman - you've been seeing too many Bruce Willis flix. The outcome of a gunfight over gun rights between US citizens and soldiers is pretty clear from Waco. Only a nut case would try it, and those nut cases surely had the means to make a fight. When push came to shove, our "fellow citizen soldiers" didn't hesitate.

In Iraq, the overwhelming majority of US casualties and fatalities are caused by IEDs and RPGs. AK47s don't perform well against modern armaments.

Fantasies about the 'armed citizen' taking on the army are just fantasies. Stick to shooting grouse and woodcock - they don't shoot back!

Several posters are defending Zumbo with logic that just doesn't fly. Yes, he can say what he wants to say, but his supporters have the right to remove that support if Zumbo is costing them money and customers. My friend King Brown makes comparisons among various countries and their human rights behavior and support of the letter of their constitutions. Others make illustrations of the bad PR of camo clad hunters. Let's face it, the world is full of powers attempting to deprive their citizenry of the right of self defense. The world is also full of individuals and groups attempting to maintain the right of self defense. The people of the United States are just a little more protective of this right than the people of other countries. There is very little difference in principle; it is just a matter of degree. Maybe we will go down in flames, but we will be last to do so.

Mr. Maloney:

I do not know from whence you acquired your knowledge base, but I have spent a good deal of my life studying and developing Light Infantry tactics and capabilities, both as a paid employee of my Uncle Samuel and in various academic pursuits.

A reasonable analog to examine is the war between Slovenia and the Yugoslav Federal Army, the Croats against the Yugoslav Federal Army.

Those conflicts were fought by light infantry - citizen soldiers, against the mostly Serb central govt. They were sucessful, although at significant cost.

Light infantry, which is what "citizen-soldiers" are, can be successful on the modern battlefield if they are motivated - and defending your home is an excellent motivator. Also, it must be pointed out that in civil conflicts, even among the most repressive governments ( Husseins Baathists excepted) there is generally a hesitation to use extreme measures such as carpet bombing, NBC, and MLRS or systemns of a similar nature, as such cause a total breech between the people and the government.

Waco is not an analog. It was not open warfare, nor declared combat. It was a forcible arrest gone awry after the responsible agency stupidly and incompetantly grandstanded for the Congress and the TV cameras. 50 religious zealots surrounded by about 1000 cops.

Your set-up of a straw man, which is then conveniently knocked down, is not very instructive.

The "Second Amendment" rebellion is an extremely unlikely scenario, and would be the end result of a gross breakdown of the American civic polity and Constituional authority. None the less, it is the purpose for which the Founders envisioned the amendment, and such a rebellion against tyranny certainly is more likely of success if the citizens have arms than if they do not. I also posit that 100,000 armed men in the streets would give any government, no matter how odious, pause. If this were NOT the case, dictatorships world wide would not have as their first agenda item upon accession to power : "collect all the guns".

Simply because the Second Amendment scenario is unlikely, and possibly unlikely of success, it is no less true that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last resort against tyranny.

Regards

GKT

In my post, I deliberately stayed away from the constitutional issues on this. I never stated that these guns should be "outlawed," in fact I said something just the opposite. I made my argument from the point of view that I have a hard time understanding the use of assault weapons as a sporting arm. I am sure rocket propelled grenades would be pretty effective on prarie dogs as well, but I would also find them to be lacking as a sporting arm.

Many of you will disagree with me over this. I can tell you that as a lifelong hunter, I feel uncomfortable when I meet hunters in the woods during deer season that are dressed and armed like it is a special ops event. I did not grow up in that sort of a tradtion. Maybe todays young people will feel differently about this and that is their privilege.

I do believe that our sport is freguently at risk. I think as hunters and sportsmen, sometimes we need to look at our own behaviors and how we present ourselves to the public. Our constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. I would hate to think that we have brought any loss of firearms privileges upon ourselves through our own short-sightedness.

As far as Mr. Zumbo's programs on tv go, I will not miss them. Most of these hunting programs seem to be just about filling tags. That is a kind of hunting I left behind in my youth.

Sorry for ruffling feathers. I am one of you, but I do not always agree with you.

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Mr. Pirie: It seems to me you have missed the point entirely. I'm a hunter, target shooter, former law enforcement firearms instructor and strong supporter of the 2nd Amentment. I have never felt the need for an AR-15 or similar firearm with which to hunt, or even shoot targets. I do, however, support those who do. For large game hunting, my M-70 Winchester .30-06 or M-94 .30-30 have served me well and I see no need to change. That said, the choice of an AR-15, SKS, AK-47 clone or whathaveyou, is up to the individual. That individual may hunt with whatever legal firearm he chooses so far as I am concerned, as long as he/she remains a careful, safe and ethical hunter. I will follow the same practice with my choice(s).

The bottom line to this whole arguement is simply that, as has been stated very eloquently earlier in this thread, it is imperative that we shooters and hunters present a positive united front to the anti-gun zealots. As Franklin said, "We must all hang together or we shall assuredly hang separately".

You shoot the guns you like, and I shall do likewise, and hopefully we will move in the same direction to stop those who would relieve us of ALL of our firearms.

Regards,

Ed Stabler

The Second Amendment is certainly about government tyranny BUT it is also about the eventual defense of our country in a time of National emergency. Here is the law;

Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
#(b) The classes of the militia are—
#(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
#(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As you can see, the founders meant for all of us to be able to come to the defense of our country and as part of that we are to be armed. I don't own an AR. Before anyone accuses me of being a Rambo wannabee, I have no fantasies about being thrust into a militia to defend the country. However, I love this country and would come to her defense if I were called upon. Further, I have a solemn responsibility to defend my family and the RIGHT to be armed for that responsibility is sacrosanct.

If you have a stake in America's future, you'll keep well armed.
I do not trust the change of god, or fast buck new arrivals.
They've no stake in America!

Re-read the above. This is the short cut to the end of shooting sports and firearms ownership.

I'm not fond of ARs either, and I do wish that crowd would tone it down a bit for their own good, and for the rest of us as well. I don't own a semi-auto rifle or shotgun. All of the long guns I use, rifle and shotgun, have two barrels, and I don't have much use for anything else.

So, you and I agree that ARs are "politically incorrect" for hunting today. What will it be tomorrow? It WILL be SOMETHING. When it becomes "politically incorrect" for sporting purposes, the sporting guns will be gone. When keeping a deadly weapon for self defense becomes "politically incorrect", the rest will be gone. That's how it went in England, and much of the rest of the world.

Here in the States, we haven't had any "rights" for a long time. It's all privileges now. We crossed that pass long ago, and are now on the slippery slope. How fast do you want to go on the trip to the bottom? The antis go one step at a time. Today it's assault rifles. As soon as that one is under their belt, they will immediately start on the next group. What will it be? Rem 1100s? "Assault" single action revolvers? Or maybe those horrible "assault" double barrel shotguns that can fire two devastating swarms of hot lead at one time (I saw print ads to almost exactly that effect in England some years ago)? Or the evil soft nose bullets that could only be wanted to murder schoolchildren more efficiently? Give them a "freebie" for the ones that you don't want, and the ride to the bottom will only be that much faster.

The shooting community is beleaguered. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and freedom of speech. However, he made his living off of us for 42 years, and took money that he would never have received had his views been known to us. His words are already being used by Brady and others against us. Even if his mea culpa is sincere, it does not reverse his treason. He deserved to swing, and swing he has.

I love double rifles and Foxes. But I also really enjoy automatic weapons. They are a whole ot of fun. In some of the esituations I used them, no it wasnt but training with them is a hoot. If you ask Crossed Chisles about some of hisactivities and interests with the "boys" out in Ill. when he taught a gunsmithing curriculum, he will have some tales to tell.
Just because it is black and alloy/synthetic doesnt mean its bad.
I ownt even get into the concept of all American males being able to fire and qualify with the standard service rifle.

When the going get stough, the tough go cyclic!!!!

I hope this doesnt excommunicate me form the double gun crowd

Mr. Stabler:
I do not believe that I have missed anyone's point "entirely." I do think some of you have not read what I wrote carefully. I wrote that I do not agree with using assault rifles as a sporting arm. For me, they come short of what I feel is "fair chase." I never said anything about outlawing them, in fact, I said just the opposite. I deliberately tried to steer clear of the constitutional issues with gun control. I know the Second Amendment does not provide the privilege to possess any weaponry immaginable, enough said.

I do not remember accusing anyone of being a "Rambo wannabee." I did use some similarly figurative language to describe how some of the hunters I meet in the woods today appear to me, but I do not see any accusations being made towards anyone, unless, you possibly felt that my colorful description was a match. I am pretty sure that this did not happen.

At best, I regret jumping in to this fray. As I said earlier, I am a lifelong hunter, I may not agree with some of you on everything, but I am still a hunter. I should have remembered that when this board gets away from shotguns, it becomes a less friendly place.

Best regards,
Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermon

In an attempt to find the perfect Grouse gun I've ended up with a safe full of doubles, but none are as much fun to shoot as my AR. I like the Zumbo is a Dumbo quote the best so far......

The big mistake that Zumbo made is he is a center of influence for the shooting community.

Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are a wonderful thing. But along with that comes responsibility.

If you wrote an Email to your co-workers disparaging your boss, you most likely would be fired. It is doubtful a judge would give you your job back based on the First Amendment.

Jim Zumbo is a gun writer and world class sportsman. By writing what he did, it causes people not to buy Outdoor Life magazine, Remington products, and people no longer watch his TV show. Therefore, many other people lose money.

A similar but different situation is the baseball player John Rocker. He voiced his opinion of the diverse group of people who ride the 7 train in New York. He was basically run out of baseball.

Who cares what a ball player thinks? He is not a rocket scientist, he throws a baseball. In fairness, I think they (the media) were too hard on him. Now if it had been a Police Chief, or a Governor, I would be worried. With Zumbo however, he just didn't think. His apology came a little too late.

The Second Amendment was written to give Americans the right to bear arms to defend themselves against their own government gone awry.

Back then, "arms" meant rifles, muskets, pistols, swords, cutlass, pike and polearms.

The founding father's could never have imagined machineguns, .50 caliber sniper rifles, WMD, etc. In fact, in the 1700's, I guess a Brown Bess would have been an "assault weapon".

I have no need for an assault rifle. I don't scan the skies looking for black helicopters, and I don't watch for chinese paratroopers falling from the sky. And I know that alot of folks have them just because they are fun to shoot.

I also believe that it is an American's right to have one if they are not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm.

As sportsman, we need to support all of the various venues. Trappers need to support coonhunters, bowhunters should support gun hunters, etc.

Make no mistake, the anti-gun lobby sees no difference in an AR-15 or your 1890's hammer gun. They are all evil and are killing our kids. They will not stop if they ban assault rifles. It will be the first step. Many say register them like you do a car. Well, driving is a privelege. Gun ownership is a right. Big difference. And, we all already know that gun laws make no difference to criminals. They don't buy guns at the gun shop. They buy them from another crackhead or steal them from your home.

To wrap it up, by Zumbo saying or writing what he did showed division. Division in the ranks of the shooting fraternity which is alarming. If a regular Joe made those comments it's no big deal. But for a once well respected writer to make them is troubling. Sorry for the long and bounced around rant.

Kind regards,

Faint hope perhaps but there's movement in federal political and police circles in Canada to get rid of the long gun registry and replace an impotent regulatory regime with simple licenses of competency which we already have i.e. acquisition and possession certificates. Register the owner, not the firearm. My personal feeling is that it will happen.

It would be a victory for persistent appealing to common sense,supported by evidence more than emotion, striking a common chord. The shameless waste of money has helped. As an active participant in the campaign, I can say that our sporting fraternity has not had any public divisions in its ranks. As enthusiasts everywhere, we had differences of opinion, but we kept our mouths shut.

Mr. Pirie - What is your definition of an "assault" rifle? An AR-15 is a semi-auto, my A-5 is a semi-auto, a Browning Twelvette is a semi-auto, albeit a 2-shot semi auto. Do these make you uncomfortable? Is my Remington 1100 "unsporting"? If the AR had a walnut stock and an internal magazine would that make you and Mr. Zumbo feel any better? If good ol' boys in camo make you uncomfortable you should take up tiddly winks. Perhaps a little Harris tweed would make things more chummy. Jim Zumbo bit the hand that fed him because he evidently is a gun snob. I suspect that all that the rarified air of gratis ammo, guns, and hunting trips went to his head and confused him. I expect his head is clear now. Apologies for this flame. I'm generally a nice guy, at least that's what my dog tells me.

Gun control and gun banning is a lot like porn regulation to me. Who gets to decide what is and what is not allowed? When the Supreme Court could not come up with a description of what porn was, nine of the better legal minds in America, what give you any hope reasoned gun restrictions will be made by the same people? On top of that this becomes a very emotional issue for many and facts and the lack of knowledge gets in the way of opinions. Too many people think that they know a lot more than they really know. The rely on others to inform them and do not find out if they are being lied to or told the true facts.

We really need to regulate the people not the guns. If you obey the law you should be allowed to own a gun of your choice. If you break the law you loose that right. Prison for your crime and the certain fact that if you do the crime that you will pay the time should be central to any law.

Any one is allowed to have an opinion just do not impose your opinion on me.

Indeed the Slovenians and Croats fought against the Serbs, as they have from time immemorial, in the impossibe ethnic brew that has been called "the powderkeg of Europe." Claiming that an ethnic war based on ancient hatreds is an 'analog' to US gun owners fighting a US government is simply nonsense.

Mr. Maloney:

First things first.

I never suggested "US Gun Owner vs US Govt". In the "Second Amendment Scenario" I posited, it would be mass warfare - literally hundreds of thousands of people in arms against a delegitimized tyrannical, non-Constitutional government. This would not be a few gun clubs fending off black helicopters. Again, as I said, the scenario and the response are both unlikely, but that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. If you have a dispute with that, I am sorry. You will have to take it up with them.

Second, in my reference to the Slovenes and Croats, I believe I was quite clear, but perhaps I was not. I try to write succinctly, but sometimes I fail. If I was not clear, please forgive me for the obscurity -

I merely pointed out that light infantry of militia-type model had been sucessful in battle against an organized regular army. The cost was significant.

That is all I said.

Are you suggesting that the analogy is not good simply because there were cultural issues involved?

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did a pretty good job as well. So did the Hungarian republican forces in 1956. Unfortunately for the Hungarians and the Jews, there was no exterior support, and no mass support ( such as would be seen in a scenario envisioned by the Founding Fathers) and the OPFOR prevailed. The Afghan Mujahadeen performed pretty creditably against Soviet heavy forces too. Many of them armed with Lee-Enfields. ( Of the type that make Congressman Schumer uncomfortable, I might add. But Im sure you knew that so I digress)

I have cited historical , operational examples. There are others. Rather than spluttering at me that I must be wrong, why not provide me some counter-citations and we will discuss this like civilized gentlemen?

Regards

GKT

Looks like another outdoor writer has a professional death wish. David Petzal posted this defense of Zumbo (see link): Field and Stream Blogs

Here is an excerpt:


I take this stuff personally!

I must say this is the best treatise I have read in defense of 2nd amendment rights, written by guys who think the same as I do, but able to express themselves much more eloquently.

I'm savin' it.

Thank you Greg Tag, et.al.

Reality, for the vast majority of Americans, whether perceived or otherwise, is what the network news, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, tells you it is and they are blatantly anti-gun. It won’t be long now before the restrictions start rolling out of Washington/Hollywood.

Is Mr. Zumbo, like so many here, merely saying how he feels about some automatic firearms as double owners do? This board influenced my decision to get rid of clickety-clacks and become the purist of my youth. I've taken up archery again and thinking differently about the boom-bangs.

David Petzal and Jim Zumbo may be espousing a "lighter footprint" of environmentalism to draw off unreasoned heat, to set out clearly that sportsmen aren't group-think. Rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, in this case, leaders lead and from what I'm reading here he's done well for sportsmen for a long time.

Personally, I've been bolt-action since 1939 and wouldn't hunt seriously with a guy carrying an AR-15. The first shot counts. Saying that in a public forum should not be "a death wish" any more than saying we're liberal or conservative, Mormon or atheist (although the latter is apparently the most despised minority in the United States). Must we choose between PBS, CNN and Fox News?

All the above, of course, are welcomed in our home.

Post deleted by HomelessjOe

I'm a hunter and like Zumbo I see no need for the hunter to own a military type firearm.

The Founding Fathers could not envision the warfare and weaponry of today. As I said earlier, there was little difference in weaponry between redcoats and Continentals.

Today's infantry works with communications, armor, air support, firepower and training that can quickly overwhelm untrained civilians with small arms. Most US casualties in Iraq have come from IEDs and car bombs, which are indiscriminate weapons more lethal to unarmed civilians than to "the occupying forces" - hardly what the Founding Fathers envisioned.



Not "simply because," but nationalism is a superb motivator and plays a huge role in the Balkans. But remember that Yugoslavia was a cobbled-together police state that had lost its ramrod leader and was in a state of economic and moral disintegration at the time. The Serb forces were indifferently equipped and badly led and did not have access to the military technology of the modern state.



And they lost. Even back in the days of cannon-fodder armies, small arms didn't hold up well against armor, artillery and air power.



Again, working with substantial outside support (including US missiles) against a demoralized army from a bankrupt country, and soldiered by deeply religious people who cheerfully gave up their lives for Allah.

Even our Founding Fathers and our Continentals wouldn't have made it without two great advantages: (1) the redcoats were two months and 3,000 miles from their logistical base, and (2) we got significant financial, material, military and naval support from France. Somehow, I don't think we'll be able to count on French support next time.

The days of cannon-fodder armies are over, and the daydream of glory a la Sergeant York is being blown away by satellites, GPS, Hellfire missiles, Blackhawks, field computers, and weaponry beyond imagining by the Founding Fathers.

Fortunately, most of the guys who fondle their Chinese junk ARs and dream of glory will grow up before they hurt someone. Those who don't can be handled easily by any small town police SWAT team.

Let's hope they do.

Joe, if you don't care to own a military style firearm, that's fine, and I'll support your right to feel that way and to hunt with the firearm of your choice. BUT, if someone else happens to hunt happily, safely and ethically with an AR-15, do you have the right to tell him he can't, and to even suggest that he "doesn't need" that particular gun?

As has been stated here, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is a right that all of us, whether we own fine double guns or black semi-autos, enjoy and had better start defending with much vigor or we're going to loose out big-time.

Let the camel get his nose under the tent flap, and pretty soon he'll be inside. Same thing with the anti-gun crowd. I've come to the conclusion over the years that it really doesn't matter what type of firearm you choose, the anti-gunn crowd wants them all. Thus the fight against gun control must include ALL firearms whether they be Parkers, Colt SAAs, AR-15s or single-shot .22s. Lose one type, and we're likely to lose them all.

What will you do when they eventually get around to confiscating your nice sporting guns?

Keep the faith...

Ed

I drive a car and I see no need for a car driver to own a motorcycle. Motorcycles can go really fast and are quite dangerous, especially to the children.

That mauser bolt action rifle should get shitcanned. Oh yeah,that G&H Springfield 03 goes too. The rolling blocks shouldn't be kept by hunters either. Don't even think of hunting with a peacemaker, the cavalry version is evil.

The source of prejudice *spit* is usually ignorance and fear.

The camels nose is already under the tent flap.

The general public should have never been allowed to own an assault type Military Weapon.

Yeti do you like to chew tabacco while you play Rambo ?

Whether there is a "need" for military-type semiauto weapons in the hands of civilians is beside the point. There is no "need" for hunting, period, in modern society--but the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Anti-gun politicians, pandering for your vote, will tell you that they're not out to take away "hunters' guns"--that is, unless said hunter happens to hunt with something that bears some resemblance to a weapon carried either by the US or foreign militaries. And many of those same pols ignore the fact that people hunt with handguns--and for the most part, the same people that are anti-"assault rifle" are also anti-handgun.

Divide and conquer is the strategy of the anti-gun crowd. And unfortunately, Zumbo's rash statement was quickly picked up and used by the anti-gun crowd, providing ready proof of just how harmful such views can be, to gun owners in general.

Hunters are a relatively small minority in this country--something in the neighborhood of 5-7% or so of the population. Gun owners are also a minority, but a much larger minority. In fact, I think (from past discussions) that we have quite a few non-hunting gun owners that frequent this site--even though the guns they own aren't mostly of the type to which Zumbo referred.

I stand with all law-abiding owners of legal firearms. And that's where we'd better ALL stand, if we don't want our minority to grow even smaller.

"The general public should have never been allowed to own an assault type Military Weapon."

Those scawwry .30 carbines need to be rounded up.

We need to police ourselves before we are policed.

Well, Jack, while that line of thought holds up well in theory, I know one B2 pilot that has told me and the fencepost that the day he gets an order to loose a JDAM on civilians on US soil is the day the Air Force finds a nice bomber swimming in the gulf of Mexico. Maybe he figures he can get a job parking cars in Belize, or that he might look to join the targeted. While it is plausable that he is the exception, and not the rule, I kinda' doubt it. NATO troops might be a different story-who knows?

If and when the levee breaks, so to speak, put me in the catagory of well armed, if you don't mind. Actually, even if you do mind. I'll take my chances there, thank you.

Anyway, someone out there has written the book describing people in one of three catagories-wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. It is a work on self defense, of course, and I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I'm 'gonna, real soon.

Because, looking at the posts on this board, the guy is absolutely, dead on, correct. You can figure out which ones are which in just a sentence of internet blather.

As to Zumbro, a boss several workplaces ago summed it up quite nicely. One "Aw, Rats!" can undo a surprising quantity of well deserved "atta boys'!!"

Aw Rats, Mr. Zumbro.

Gotta go do some reading now.
Best,
Ted

"The general public should have never been allowed to own an assault type Military Weapon."

Does this refer to a flintlock or one of them new-fangled caplocks?

Ok, I'll bite. I think maybe the question to be asking of all of us is at what point do personal rights and personal responsibility cancel each other out, or do they?

For instance, I think the fact that a criminal can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun without a background check is insane, even though it is allowed within the law. I therefore think it is our responsibility as defenders of liberty to address issues askew such as this, because abuses of liberty do justice to neither liberty nor responsible people.

Having said that, I strongly support the freedom of any law abiding citizen to own whatever firearm he chooses to own. With our own government's recent decision to federalize the national guard, and subsequent removal of Posse Comitatus rights that used to prevent the military from being used against our own citizens, I wonder if a safe full of scatterguns is sufficient anymore. An armed citizenry is (I hope), still an effective deterrent to abuses of power, which, as we all know, is the original basis for 2nd Amendment rights.

I think there is a need for hunting.

Ted wither someone writes one sentence or 5 paragraphs it's still internet blather, I'm glad I don't sit around worrying about some imaginary levee to break....can't wait to read some more of your 'blather'.

That works in many applications. It's a fundamental truth that it doesn't work with anti-gunners. They hate your double barrel just as much as they do an AR15. It is NOT a matter of degree with these people, and any serious shooter in today's world who doesn't understand this is deaf, dumb, and blind. Unilateral concessions to them that may seem "reasonable" to you will NEVER be "reasonable" to them.

One more time, how fast do you want to go down the slope?

I don't want to go down the slope with some liberal democrat at the steering wheel.

What do you think ?

Oh, I don't worry about the levee, per say, Joe-it's more of a hypothetical discussion thing-when you become more refined in your reading skills and use of the board, it will be much easier for you to spot. I have plenty of guns, (the only autos are .22s, mostly for the kids to use at gun safety classes) but, I seriously doubt anybody has much to fear from them-even the real lefties, no shortage of those here in MN.
What I truly fear, is stumbling on a really fat, beer gutted, camo wearing turkey hunter, with a double, in the woods, in the middle of a coronary event. 'Cause, I know, I'll have to begin treatment for same, and the thought 'kinda grosses me out. So, I'll kick at him for a while, before I get started in earnest.

So, did you draw a turkey tag this season?
Best,
Ted

"I seriously doubt anybody has much to fear from them-even the real lefties"

Ted, Mayor Guliani banned 10/22s as assault weapons in NYC. There is no limit to the grabbers desires.

Ted I figure you don't get far enough from the road to worry about running into me.

Which cult you belong to Ted....don't drink the Cool-aid.

None here will be final arbiters on that one, marklart. jack maloney, however, has come closest to my feelings about the issues of responsibility and liberty---and justice.

Somehow or another, perhaps from the way Canada developed from a colony, society here accepted---chose---laws that placed limitations on use and ownership i.e. pistols, machine guns etc which have been in effect for more than 75 years.

Sportsmen saw the regulations as reasonable but drew the line on registration of our long-guns. As reported earlier, I expect to see reversal of that policy.Canadians, however, don't think of taking up arms against their governments.

It's unimaginable for me that Americans would ever find a valid reason to do otherwise. They make their own laws which one way or another impose limitations and promote pursuit of happiness providing it doesn't trammel the rights of others.

My opinion is no more valid than yours, of course, and it is influenced by my reporting in the 60s of good folks in Missouri's James and Younger country selling bazookas and Garands from their garages to take on Washington.

It was as abhorrent to me as our killing seals is to Americans.

From Ted Blathers posts you can see we have some extrememists.

Sorry if this has been said before, but I don't have time to read 5 pages of comment.
I compete with military rifles and my AR-15 shoots 1" 5 shot groups at 100 yards. If anyone thinks these rifles are just a bullet hose, they are wrong. They are one of the most accurate rifles for competition in history. Don't believe me? Check out Camp Perry every year. If it is good enough for target work, it is good enough for hunting. I've met Jim Zumbo and can say I enjoy his mule deer experetise, but don't think he is very likable. Better not put him in any P/R job.

I'm sure you don't sit around clutching it waiting for an imaginary levee to break like ProffessOr Ted Blather.

I've shot some 600 yard matches with bolt actions at my gun club, I shot because I enjoyed it.
The reason I lost interest was I got tired of sitting around listening to the guys dreaming of being a sniper.

I don't think the attack on Zumbo was deserving.

I am surprised at the transparent anti gun attitudes expressed by some of our posters. I can understand not personally "liking" some fellow who doesn't present the correct image when he shoots his AR or AK. I can't see the attitude that includes taking it away from him or making it illegal for him to own it. Maybe some government agency some day will get real close to taking away my AK or my A-5. However, who is going to take away the multi-million dollar track vehicle and artillery collection from someone who is a major political contributor and probably has a nine figure checking account. The "fat cats" are not going to be lie down victims of anyone's confiscation program. If you want to take my 1100 away or outlaw its ownership, someone has to go and try to take away the privately owned GE miniguns and the operational Shermans. Are our anti gunners on this site afraid of those too?

I fail to see these 'transparent anti-gun attitudes' posted that you seem to see.

I have saw some posts by people with common sense when it comes to firearms. You're right about one thing....I would have a problem with anyone owning a firearm that owns it because he believes in some dooms day.

Would you agree there are people that shouldn't own a firearm ?

So the mainstream shooting community is a bunch of cultists, eh? My God, you really are a crackpot extremist.

Don't worry I won't drink the cOOl-aid.

Sounds like a cUlt to me. Ted don't drink when you read that book...it might make you think you are a Wolf.

I hope the FBI isn't reading this board.

HJ, While you were looking for the the anti-gun attitudes did you find your Million Mom March t-shirt?

Never heard of them....I'll be turkey hunting in March

The notion offered that gun registration changed to competency licensing as an alternative has inspired me to offer this post.

When someone says that a gun owner shouldn't be using a particular gun they are saying you are not to be trusted with it. If a law is instituted saying that gun owners will nolonger be trusted with guns it does not mean if you are not a gun owner now you can own a gun later, it means no one is trusted. Gun registration is for the purpose of checking on you if your a suspect. Licensing for ownership is the change from a RIGHT to a privilege! I believe this is what King Brown holds in favor?

Jim Zumbo, I beleive, was talking without thinking and I bet he is truely regretful. His self defense with his use of his charity to to our soldiers as part of it left me wondering however. His charity to soldiers had nothing to do with his rant and I find his mention of it, advertising.

I am willing to forgive Jim's statement, since he has asked, unlike Jane Fonda or anyone proposing the licensing of U.S. gun owners.

Kurt

Ted I'll have you know I don't drink beer.

If we're thinking about requiring competency licenses in the US, I suggest we start by licensing the right to keep and bear children.

A long time ago, in a land far away some guys came by in a big green truck and took away my trusty M14 and gave me a crappy "trial" AR 15 made by Armalite. I call it crappy because it jammed at almost any rate of fire and never fired a full magazine on full auto without jamming. I had to swap that sucker out about 10 times before I got one that worked. In all that confusion it found it's way home with me. When I got home I took it apart, gave it a good coat of oil and put it in a solid oak box along with a can of 7.62 ammo. It's been cleaned and oiled a few times over the past 40+ years (God, am I that old?) but I have never felt the need to take it to the woods or range. That AR 15 is my war weapon ..... It was then, it is now and always will be ...... and if it comes out of the box it will be to do the task it was intended for. I hope it never does ...... and when I pass it on to my grandson I hope he will never have to take it out of the box either. But ....... come to think of it ..... might be a good idea to get some fresh ammo.

Bouvier

Read this from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The quote below from their website is not trumped up fear mongering, it is actual, verifiable history.

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Armed citizens were ment to be a check and balance. See the Federalist Papers, #47, I believe. Don't like it? Sue James Madison he wrote them. Guns are all about what you like. Shoot what you want, we are all friends here. (Except Jim, but he's out hunting dogs with a flintlock.

Lot of water under the bridge since the Constitutional Convention. The world has moved on. If, as jm says, small arms aren't sufficient means to secure any end except getting yourself noticed by a satellite, it would seem that an anti-satellite jamming device would be an "effective" addition to the (home) arsenal of freedom. I don't think either the govmint or Comcast would be thrilled with the idea and I haven't heard the NRA espousing it. So your old blackpowder musket (or your Garand or Bushmaster) exists as a symbol of a hypothetical and "unlikely" to be manifested power of self-determination; counters in a game; artifactual detritus of a "free" people. No wonder things are so edgy in the Big Tent; lot of rhetorical minutemen who would become quite circumspect when push comes to shove comes to cattlecar. A hoe or sharp spade will do as well in hands desperate enuf to pick one up. That would be chaos enuf for me!

jack

[/quote]
Ted I'll have you know I don't drink beer.
[/quote]

Alas, no hope for you now! Get back jOe jOe, back to where you once belonged.

That's what a gun is to me a tool...be it war or hunting. If I need a gun for war I expect the United States to supply it.

The people that dream about dooms-day levees might be better off owning a dull spade.

Mr. Maloney:

Once again you have ignored my statement of conditions, and your argument is back to a straw man which I have not positied, while ignoring my basic argument.

This becomes a bit tedious, but perhaps I was unclear again. God knows I am not perfect. I will again try to be explicit and understandable - I hope you will bear with me like a gentleman.

The Warsaw Ghetto Jews lost because 1) they did NOT have enough people. 2) they did not have enough weapons and ammo. 3) Their uprising was not a Mass Uprising, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The Hungarian Republicans of Imre Nagy lost because: 1) they did NOT have enough people 2) They did not have enough weapons and ammo 3) their uprising , although more mass based than the Warsaw Ghetto situation, did not have enough extensive outside support ( outside Buda and Pest ). Their uprising did not achieve the mass envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The Mujahadeen DID win. Their ability to employ light ADA systems successfully was a big help, but the SAM's were used to attack the follow-on, or " cavalry to the rescue" Hinds. Nonetheless, a standard tactic they frequently used was the armor column ambush. This was a multi-step procedure where after they immobilized the vehicles, they destroyed the supporting infantry at dismount, using aimed rifle fire, from ambush positions. On numerous occasion, they used this method to eliminate to the last man BMP/tank- equipped company team sized elements. This was done with a couple of command detonated AT mines and then lots of Lee-Enfield rifle fire. The Mujahadeen were willing to die to complete their ops, but did not suicide and in fact functioned on the battlefield pretty much as any other citizen-soldier might - obviously unwilling to die, but accepting battlefield death as a risk to be incurred. This is no different from the behavior I would expect from any person bearing arms .

As for the contention that the SovFor were no good or were not operationally capable- this is certainly unsupportable during the first several years of the war, and even at withdrawal Soviet Forces were militarily functional. The fact they lost the political will to fight contributes to the success of the Mujahadeen.

As an aside, I wrote a professional paper on this specific subject several years ago. If I can find it, Ill send you a copy. Perhaps you would find it of interest. Or... mebbe not.

In a direct analog with the highly theoretical situation we are discussing here, the loss of "political will" by the regular forces is ( Surprise) a potential outcome of a conflict between " Second Amendment Constitutionalists" ( The Founders Last Resort) and a professional " anti-constitutionalist army of oppression".

At any rate, I hope I have myself clear this time.

An additional thought- several people have suggested that the Second Amendment "Then" was ok, but now it may be obsolete, because the arms were slow and and less capable then now. Thats a specious argument. Unless of course you will suggest that the Free Press of the First Amendment only applies to a manually operated manually typset press of the Guntenberg style, and not to high-speed offset lithography and Internet cmmunication.

Last thought- those who have bought into the "good - gun/Bad-gun" theology have surrendered their rights already, by agreeing that rights are conditional on perceptions or " majority opinions". That is " my pretty beautiful damascus barreled double gun is a good gun because its not a war weapon and its a thing of beauty", but your AR or Browning Auto-5 is evil because its a semi-auto, or shoots more than two shots without reload.

There are two fallacies there- Double guns have been used as weapons, so that isnt a "get out of jail free card" for our beloved doubles. Secondly- beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Rebecca Peters thinks your Purdey is ugly too, and wants to take it away from you as well. At least that is what she has stated publicly.

Ultimately in a world where there are sheep, and sheepdogs and wolves, some people are absolutely committed to being sheep. It is easier for them, and makes much less personal demand for fulfillment of their civic obligations. It seems incredible to me, though, that these sheep are so insistent that the rest of us must be sheep too. I guess we make them uncomfortable. Of course, it is likely that a eunuch feels uncomfortable in a locker room, too.

Regards to all

Gregory K. Taggart

Of all the countries on planet earth, America is uniquely fearful and uniquely secure and the dichotomy contributes not to extremism or cults in a most civil society but to increasingly polarized communities of aggression and fear. What could be more serving of democracy, however, than a country offering a black and a woman as president?

Friend Kingsley:

I think you overstate your case. Dont know of any communities of agression and fear, unless you consider it polarizing, aggressive or fearful to take precautions. I dont.

As for Senator Obama and Senator Clinton - trendy leftists with good press.

I prefer to await the announcements of State Secretary Ken Blackwell and Secretary Rice. Not leftists, not trendy andfar less likely to get good press.

Regards


GKT

One country's wacko is another country's first President.
If he is on our side he is a "Freedom Fighter". Not on our side? a "terrorist". Remember most of the British colonists opposed the revolution, or simply didn't care. James Madison warned of Factions. Factions cause a lot of trouble. They are the tail that wags the dog. Factions caused the fall of the Soviet Union too.

So, Greg, in addition to our sporterized 03s or whatever we're going to substitute for the resilient Lee-Enfield, we're going to need 1) a mountain defile, 2) anti-armour mines, 3) AA rockets for that irritating air cover, 4) demoralization of the opposition unrelated to our success in the field? I call Special Case.

jack

Greg: the Soviets in Afghanistan were demoralized, their country was unquestionably bankrupt. The mujahideen were bankrolled and armed by outside interests including, ironically, both the US and al-Qaeda. Only a few years later, our military kicked their butts quickly. Sure, the Taliban are trying to come back now, supported by opium money, but even with one hand tied behind our backs in Iraq - and in Washington - the US and our token NATO contingents are doing pretty well against them.

The role of the rifleman has changed. The "Minuteman" fantasy so popular on this board ignores the realities of modern warfare.

But if you want to fondle your ARs and imagine yourself as a hero in the war against an "anti-constitutionalist army of oppression," why that's just fine with me.

Fred Swartz's book, "Three Faces of Revolution" is a good read. As rightly pointed out, pitch-forks won't overthrow a powerful country. But, a determined enemy against a weak, or undetermined foe will win everytime. The Change of China's dynasties didn't occour at the pinacle of the dynasty, but at it's decline. Hitler who formed his own revolution lived by the motto, "If the house is rotten, kick in the door and the whole rotten house will come down.

Only one event ever made me consider getting an AR or similar gun. That was the Rodney King riots that took place around the SoCal area. That event clearly demonstrated to me how fragile general civility is in a large metropolitan/suburban environment. I never did buy one, but I sure like the option of being able to.

Chuck, do you remember the televised Bank of America armed robbery by the two suicide robbers in full body armor? The police were severely over-matched and went to a gun store to borrow AR15 rifles. I always thought they got the wrong guns. They should have borrowed .416 Rigbys with solids.

Rabbit and Jack:

Anti armor mines are easily come by in a fight such as that described in Afghan land. Same thing with light ADA systems. It is still light infantry conducting essentially light infantry operations on the militia model.

Popular support is essential to the popular uprising succeeding. As I said earlier, the Founders did not see that as a few guys from the gun club saving the nation from tyranny.

Outside support and funding is great too, but I suspect the Muj would have won anyway.

As for Soviet bankruptcy, that was at the end of the Reagan years. They were doing ( at least to outside observers) apparently ok up to then. Their military certainly was not suffering from incapacity.

Regards

GKT

If there is polarization over gun rights, it resides precisely in the profound discomfort of some with the culture of Carlos Hathcock and Semper Fi gone to the defence of the idea that the private citizen should be able to own the "personal" armament of his choosing. Pursued to absurd lengths, such an idea would justify the private ownership of a "small" nuclear weapon by men of self-assessed moral probity, intelligence, and wisdom such as Mr. Taggart as well as by others who failed to fill in the form. I have a few of the "next on the list" milsurp toys myself but I don't expect for a moment the world will be deterred from its course by any amount of high-minded posturing on my part.

jack

If you're counting on popular support, you haven't been paying attention lately. In a democratic society, any war on our RKBA will be fought and won by ballots, not bullets, and the polls aren't very encouraging. Reasoned argument has held the line, so far, but chest-thumping and brandishing ARs isn't winning us any friends.

A&E did a documentary on the fall of the Ruskies entitled, "The Second Russian Revolution". One thing that caught my attention was that they mentioned before Gorbachav, the Soviet Premier only had to raise an eyebrow to get everybody to fall in line. During the last years an small band of renegades in the assembly gave Gorbachev a run for his money. The Politburo descibed running the state with the renegades in power as ,"like driving an truck on ice, Barely in control".

I’ve scanned some of the posts made on this thread, and I certainly would like to add my two cents worth since the subject has touched a raw nerve. Pardon me while I get up on my soap box, and please understand I’m not lashing out at anyone specifically.

Topic 1:
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

I find it hard to believe that some can not grasp the meaning. So, let’s begin with quotes from the founding fathers and approved commentators on the right to keep and bear arms to help explain what they meant.

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” -Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” –George Mason, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed…” –Patrick Henry, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788

This just a small sample of evidence that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to enumerate, not grant, an inherent right to arms for defense of the nation against enemies domestic and foreign and self defense at home. U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Cruikshank clearly states that our rights are in no way dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. Hunting and sport shooting are consequences of the second amendment, not primaries. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or has trouble with the definition of the word “is”. The clam by the anti-gunners that the second amendment must be restricted or otherwise people will claim that there’s a right to nuclear arms, missiles, tanks, etc, is nothing short of just trying to whip up hysteria and scare people. The second amendment was intended to ensure that the citizen was armed equal to the infantryman. Tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons are not standard issue to the infantryman. U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) made this very clear. The court stated: “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Topic 2
Assault weapons:
The AR-15 and AK-47 (semi-auto version) or any other semi-auto rifle or semi-auto shotguns are not assault weapons. They have nothing more to do with “assault weapons” than the cars we drive have anything to do with NASCAR. A full-auto select fire M-16, H&K MP5, AK-47 (full-auto version) can fit this definition. Every type of weapon has its niche to fill. Will an upland hunter use an AR-15 to hunt quail? Of course not, but that is no reason to ban the AR-15 since the 2nd amendment states there is an inherent right to keep and bear arms, not just fowling pieces. The Georgia State Supreme made an interesting ruling in regards to this that is almost prophetic with the issue of banning so-called “assault weapons” in the case Nunn vs. State 1846: The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right...
These semi-auto guns have their place just as any other rifle, shotgun, handgun, or machine gun. Just in case anyone believes that letting civilians own machine guns is dangerous, consider this: Since 1939 there has been only one crime reported with a lawfully owned machine gun, and it was committed by a police officer against his own family. I trust no one will claim that if machine guns were banned, this would have never happened.

General Comments:

Anti-gunners love to claim that we need "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd amendment. The first question is reasonable to whom? Reasonable is a fluid term, not a concrete principle. I think we should put "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st amendment and abortion too. Let's apply the catch phrase "the founders could not have imagined machine guns" to "the founders could not have imagined television, movies, video games, the internet, or abortion" as justification for restrictions on the 1st amendment. If it does not violate one amendment (inspite of the shall not be infringed statement), it certainly can not violate another, right? Of course, the liberal establishment would go nuts along with the media who profits from the violece and pornography they pimp on our culture and fund the liberals who assault our rights for the violence they help create. There are thousands of independent academic studies showing long term exposure to violent media causes violence in our society.

I noticed a few remarks about firearms registration. The next time the anti-gunners claim that we need firearms registration and licensing to reduce crime or that gun control only targets criminals and not lawful citizens, remind them of this: No criminal can ever be charged with NOT having a firearms license or registered gun per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haynes vs. U.S. (390, U.S. 85, 1968) on 5th amendment grounds, meaning these laws can only be enforced against lawful citizens. This begs the question, what do you call a government that recognizes Constitutional rights for criminals, but can not grasp the definition of “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for lawful citizens?

I personally never cared much about what jim zumbo wrote. But, the theory is that whatever first comes to mind and, if that is what you say, you probably believe it.
The poor scribe says he was tired? Your basic beliefs vary according to your moods?
I personally do not own an M16/AR15 but without fully automatic setting they are nothing but an individuals semi-auto weapon (yes a weapon like the ones that with brave soldiers bought and preserve our freedom)not in the same class as an atomic sub though, as some antis might try to draw an analogy.
I would miss my walnut and blueing, but would have to argue that most military type rifles make decent hunting rifles!
Mike

Well now, those texts are pretty clear, aren't they? However, I never hear much support for universal military service to assure that the "well-regulated" bit gets some attention. What's your take on that, JM? NRA hunter safety course enuf in your opinion? As for your view of what is and isn't an "assault" weapon, I agree that the Matty Mattel on semi-auto is pretty much a rifle squad staple and I see nothing wrong with everyone of us having one in the closet, bit of drill in the hot sun on weekends, clean it for a couple hours and then clean it again (up to say the age of 65 anyway). To this irrelevant, minoritarian Nimrod, the paramilitary coat tail we cling to for the maintenance of our "rights" is getting pretty worn thru by cognitive dissonance--or should I say lies, damned lies, and hypocracy. Not meant to offend any particular one of my fellow dwellers under the Big Tent, of course.

jack

I wonder after reading some of your posts if sOme of you guys realize this is the United States of America....not Afganistan, not Nazi Germany.

Quote from rabbit:
"I never hear much support for universal military service to assure that the "well-regulated" bit gets some attention. What's your take on that, JM? NRA hunter safety course enuf in your opinion?"

rabbit, before I respond, I want to be sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you asking my opinion on conscript or compulsary military service?

I think most of us have a pretty clear idea of where we are, Joe--and are glad of the fact we can own weapons that a lot of other nations prohibit.

Couple comments from past posts: Marklart, somebody suckered you into that "gun show loophole" stuff. There ain't no gun show loophole. FFL dealer sells at a gun show, he does a background check. If I (without an FFL) set up at a gun show and sell a gun, no background check, because 1) Not being a dealer, I can't do one; and 2) If we were both in my house instead of at a gun show, I could also legally sell you a gun without doing a background check. Close the "gun show loophole" and what you've done, in fact, is close the private sale loophole. Same rules apply at a gun show as apply to a dealer at his shop, or to a non-dealer selling a gun to someone at his house.

Afghanistan . . . Interestingly enough, the "we" that beat the Taliban (which did not exist until several years AFTER the Russians were driven out) and AQ consisted largely of other Afghans--who had also been fighting the Russians. Some would say that our particular allies (the Northern Alliance) were, in fact, more effective in the war against the Russians than were those Pashtun groups that received most of the American aid (which, because it was funneled through the Pakistani Intelligence Service, mostly ended up in the hands of their co-ethnic Pashtuns in the south). So this time around, we armed one bunch of Afghans (and supported them with air power) to get rid of the radical Islamists who had taken power, and their AQ allies, whom they were sheltering.

As for losing at the ballot box, the best way to do that is to drive wedges between various groups of gun owners. Hunters don't stand up for the cowboy action shooters who don't stand up for the clay target shooters who don't stand up for the long range rifle guys who don't stand up for the handgun guys. Together, although a minority, we are a large and very vocal minority. Better that than a bunch of clans fighting amongst themselves. Jack, one would think that someone of Celtic heritage would understand that you're the strongest when the clans are united. And our gun rights rest not just on some everyday federal law, but on the US Constitution--which is (on purpose) a relatively difficult document to amend. I'm not at all concerned about losing our gun rights at the ballot box. But looking at the examples of places like England and Australia, I get very worried when I see the gun grabbers doing their thing by taking away one type of gun, then another, then another. Eventually, gun owners are reduced to such a small minority that they can't withstand political assault. Let's not do the antis' work for them.

JM, "universal" implies precisely the adjectives you have substituted: conscript or compulsory. I'm not sure how the citizen soldiers would be "taught alike"--in the words of the Virginian--if this were not the case. Perhaps drill in the comfort of your own home via of the internet? Spring your trap.

jack

I have no trap to spring so relax. I wanted to be sure of what you were asking since I've never heard the term "universal" applied to military service. It's not hard to misunderstand what others are intending when dealing with written messages.

Now to your question, I have no objection to conscript military service following graduation from high school or possibly deferred until after finishing an undergraduate college degree.

Also curious why Bouvier stored his purloined Armalite with a can of 7.62mm. Did he expect the big ammo would teach the little gun a lesson?

jack

He was hoping to trade it in on an M-14 ?

I found it very inconvenient and harmful to my future educational and career plans to be conscripted "after high school" or "when undergraduate work is completed". Now that I am retired, more politically aware, and in reasonably good health, I could stand a break from garden work and the tedium of the reloader. Let's say 1967 didn't work but 2007 would be fine with me. I enjoyed it then and I would enjoy it now. In 1967, I didn't understand sustained lead. I was a "pass through" shooter. I would be a better soldier today.

Interesting post, Larry - but why did you direct some of it at me? Celtic heritage and clans have nothing to do with gun control. Besides, if standing together is the goal, we Irish are damn poor role models.

Personally, I am quite concerned about losing our gun rights at the ballot box - especially with the recent power change in Washington and the people who are behind it.

I found it inconvenient to go to college for what I could accomplish professionally without it, but that didn't change much either.

If conscript service had been the law of the land when I finished high school or college, the results would have been the same, just two or three years later.

In the end we only have two avenues of defense regardless of the threat. One our "arms". Two, our vote.

If you ever have need, you'll be damn glad you have either...

By the way, Larry, your take on the Northern Alliance is slightly skewed. The NA was virtually immobilized for years, making no progress whatsoever against the Taliban, until we dropped in some Special Forces spotters with GPS and direct connections to B-52s overhead. It was accurately targeted high-tech bombs that blew the Taliban out of the way; the Northern Alliance came in behind to pick up the pieces.

My Goodness;

I have been accused of self-ascribed wisdom. I must say I have accused of worse. In reponse to that one, i must say- I am not wise, just experienced. And then there is the cut about being a para-military Rambo. Now THAT is sort of silly ad hominem, dont you think? I have worked pretty hard at avoiding that. I hope I have been rational, reasonable and polite.

I have merely pointed out what the Founders said, what the Founders intended, and modern examples of operational reality.

That seems to annoy Mr. Maloney. Mea Culpa.

As for gun rights at the ballot box- yes indeed. We have a functioning Constitutional government and the best way to safeguard those rights is to vote. I would point out, however, that unlike in other countries, the right to bear arms prexisted the Constitution. It is a Natural Right, and is not subject to abolition. It can be abridged, but it cannot be destroyed.

Perhaps we can continue a friendly discourse on other matters.

Regards

GKT

I recall a Michael McIntosh column in SS or Sporting Classics perhaps 20 years ago that offered up the graceless "ugly machinery" of semi-auto so-call assault rifles as a reasonable restriction to appease the gun contollers, but shined a halo of protective light around users of graceful sporting guns. It was corrosive reasoning.

Larry has it right. Images of scruffy-looking men bearing purely utilitarian weapons are used to push on-the-fence voters to the other side, and I cringe at some of the vulgar name-calling directed at Zumbo (elsewhere) that likewise will be used to persuade voters that gun-bearing folks are a threat to peaceful community. But selling off one another's rights based on differences in taste is hypocritical and the more distasteful. Divide and conquer tactics have eroded firearms freedom elsewhere, and will eventually erode ours too. Either way it comes down to losing at the ballot box, but we lose the most when petty differences undermine the power we have standing together as a "diverse" group with at least one common core value.

Greg, when I write some of the things that I wrote in my first post when involved in a debate over the 2nd amendment, there's always someone who disagrees and calls me an extremist. First off, freedom is in itself and extreme concept, and its opposite extreme is slavery. The question, then, is which do you prefer and why? I'll take dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day (paraphrase).

If supporting the right to keep and bear arms, as it has always been referred to since its inception in this nation, makes me an extremist then that's a badge I'll proudly wear. And yeah, I can hear some of you folks saying "We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

A Right must apply to all equally, or it is not a right, but a privelidge. You cant say, I believe in freedom of religion, except for the ones I don't agree with. One cannot say," I believe in the right to bear arms, but only the ones I like. Such are situational moralists and fair-weather supporters of the 2nd Ammendment at best. Even if you hate the black plastic rifle, hold your nose and keep ranks. You have to take what you like with what you don't like. A right is a two-edged sword.

IM,

I could not agree more with your comment regarding rights vs. privileges. Isn't it interesting to note how hard the far left liberals proclaim freedom of speech and disdain the right to bear arms? Regan was right. The freedoms are not inteded to be divided and chosen by the few, that in fact is the definition of privilege.

Jim

YUP. You can't cherry-pick right. You have to buy the whole bushel. Worms and all. take care.

Couple comments from past posts: Marklart, somebody suckered you into that "gun show loophole" stuff. There ain't no gun show loophole. FFL dealer sells at a gun show, he does a background check. If I (without an FFL) set up at a gun show and sell a gun, no background check, because 1) Not being a dealer, I can't do one; and 2) If we were both in my house instead of at a gun show, I could also legally sell you a gun without doing a background check. Close the "gun show loophole" and what you've done, in fact, is close the private sale loophole. Same rules apply at a gun show as apply to a dealer at his shop, or to a non-dealer selling a gun to someone at his house.
--
Larry, if that is indeed true, that is great news! That perceived loophole has always bugged me. I stand corrected, and relieved.

As for Zumbo's comments, they are pretty much irrelevant, except for his ability to influence opinion. It matters not what any of us like or don't like, because we all have different tastes. That's why we visit this board, for the diversity of opinion and taste. To each his own, and pass the mustard.

Sorry for the bad grammar, but I was chasing my wet two year old who had just gottten out of the tub through the house and it is hard to do that and type at the same time.

I was thinking about Dumbo and had the following revelation:
Jim isn't a 2nd Ammendment supporter, he is first and foremost a hunter. If he did not have a gun, he would be chasing and killing animals with stones and sticks. To him a gun is just a tool and he has no vested interest in them. (except for the goody bag he receives from Remington.) If you are looking for a defender of gun rights, it ain't Dumbo.

You're right we need a guy with a dull spade.

JM:

read my remarks carefully. I fully support the Second Amendment - I hope thats clear from my writing. I am an anti-be-a-sheep kind of guy.

We Texans aint gelded yet.

Regards

GKT

Greg, that was never in question to me.

Well then... oops. I am sorry to have misunderstood you.

Regards

GKT

Re Dumbo's comments I'd say he an elitist that really should show respect for "black" gun owners. Whether they're sxs, hunting rifles, or "assault" guns they are all high powered pea shooters with lethal capability. It's inexcusable to critize one catagory of gun owner without actually drawing attention to oneself. What, he thinks he's vaccinated from the gun grabbers because he hunts with a bolt action?... the fool should keep his mouth shut 'cause he evidently doesn't have brain enough to drive it.

No big deal or apology needed.

That's the problem with reading written messages, it's hard at times to place them in the context with which the writer intended them.

Were the Founders still alive they would find their scribblings misunderstood and coopted for ends they could not anticipate. Parse well, friends.

jack

I think if the Founding Fathers could come back today, some would be pleased, some would be confused, some would be indifferent and some would say "Lets do it again".

Sort of what we have today, isn't it?

Kind regards,

Any slippage will allow the eventual loss of everything. There is no room for comprimise on gun control or the lack there of.. This was Hitler's first step in control and domination. There is no return from the slippery slope.

After following along with this thread, and sometimes going back and re-reading what we have written, I think, in most cases, we are together.

I did not read a single post which advocated for a loss of 2nd Amendment rights. We struggled with our interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as is the case with many parts of the Constitution. It is the very ability of the document to continue to make itself applicable to changing times that is so remarkable. The Founding Fathers designed a government that will "long endure."

In my home state of Vermont, we have very libeal gun laws. There is never a day that I am not grateful for this and for our sporting tradition here. I do not fear losing 2nd Amendment rights as some of you do because they do not appear to be under attack in Vermont as much as they are in other states.

What I do fear is losing the space to pursue my sport. This is how my 2nd Amendment rights will be curtailed here in the Northeast. It is not by confiscation or by outlawing, but it will be by taking away those places where we can use firearms.

Yes, more homes are being built in Vermont all the time, and this in itself requires all of us to continue extreme vigilance with safe firearms handling. But the real problem facing hunters and users of firearms in Vermont is the closing of land by posting. Drive down any road in Vermont today and you will see yellow poster after yellow poster. Property with access from public roads is being sealed off at beyond an alarming rate. As a hunter, and someone who tries to be a sportsman, I know where a good deal of the blame for this lies, and it lies with me and my brethren.

I will give you a couple of examples, and I think you will quickly understand what I am trying to say. About a year ago, I believe it was in September, a man was shot while picking blackberries. The hunter thought he heard something in the berry bushes, and assuming it was a bear, he fired. He went to see what he had shot and discovered a man lying in the bushes very badyly wounded. The hunter left and never called for help. The next day, the hunter thought differently about what he had done, and told people about the incident. The man who had been picking berries was discovered later that day, dead.

Later that fall, a farmer decided he would like to watch a field on his farm in the afternoon, hoping maybe to see deer coming out in the latter part of the day, and maybe getting a chance at a buck. The farmer made the mistake of sitting in his own tractor while he watched the field. His tractor had an enclosed cab and this surely made the wait more comfortable, or at least it would seem so.

A group of young men came out of the woods at one end of the field and one of the young men decided to fire a shot at the tractor. The farmer was killed.

I think most of us are familiar with the tragedy that took place in Michigan, I believe between a group of hunters and a Vietnamese hunter. I appologize if I have the nationality of the (Vietnamese) hunter wrong. I think it was Humong, but I stand ready to be corrected. Anyway, this tragedy, and I am pretty sure that this time, "AR" type rifles were involved, if I remember correctly, continue to add to the general public's displeasure with hunting. I believe Larry Brown alluded to this in one of his replies.

We will probably survive attacks on the 2nd Amenment for some time, but what good will it do if we only have rifle and skeet ranges as places to pursue our sport. It is the closing of land that is the biggest threat we face.

This is why I so strongly urge all of us to be the best ambassadors we possibly can for our sports, and not to be content with our constitutional protection that we know enjoy.

Those of you with "AR" type weapons, I never wrote that these should be confiscated or outlawed. Many of you tried to frame this argument as one about "black plastic guns." I have seem plenty of Winchester and Remington bolt actions in the woods with black plastic stocks and rather modern looking barrels. I hope you noticed that no one wrote disparagingly about these guns so I think it is not just the black plastic that some of us object to.

Some of you tried to paint us as snobs, and elitists. I can assure you that I am a pretty humble person if you ever met me. Being a good Scot, I do own and enjoy a couple of "Harris" tweed jackets. They last forever and never go out of style. If you were to find me in the woods in the fall, you can usually recognize me because I wear red and black plaid, made here in Vermont at the Johnson Woolen Mills.

If you have had the patience to read along this far in my post, you have my thanks and appreciation. Someone, I believe, it was Mr. Jack Rabbit, wrote about how we need to "parse well" when we write on this board. Mr. Jack Rabbit, how right you are.

I hope I have offended none of you, at least that is my most sincere intention.

Enjoy our sport,

Best regards,

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Jack, you need to get your facts straight. Recommended reading: "First In", by Gary Schroen. CIA teams were on the ground in Afghanistan weeks before SF teams arrived. They were already identifying targets, coordinating with the NA--which was preparing its upcoming offensive against the Taliban.

And the fact the NA had even survived--significantly outmanned and outgunned as they were--is what gave us a base of operations inside Afghanistan from which to launch the ground offensive that recaptured Kabul in a very short period of time. And you don't win wars strictly from the air. Were airpower alone capable of doing that, we would have won easily in Vietnam, would not have needed Schwarzkopf in Desert Storm, and would not have needed to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam. And, for that matter, the Soviets wouldn't have been driven out of Afghanistan in the first place.

Mr. Pirie, your thoughtful and well-written comments are well taken. I agree that this thread has been one of the most gentlemanly on the subject, but that is to be expected from this group.

I think the bottom line is that ALL of us who hunt, shoot competitively, collect fine guns or just plink must make a greater effort to present a positive image to the non-shooting public, as well as promoting positive education about our sport(s). We must police ourselves, as was written earlier in this thread.

Support of each other, regardless of our varied shooting disciplines, is imperative if we want to maintain our 2nd Amendment rights.

Kind regards,

Ed

PS It's certainly sad that Bill Wise has passed. I would have welcomed his comments on this thread.

Nice going, Ed. And wish I could go back to red-and-black instead of being dressed as a jack-o-lantern.

Well done everyone. The comments by all were well articulated.

You do see the yellow signs on properties closed to hunting.
Closed to others - but just maybe, not to those who own it.
Yellow signs do not mean anti-hunting - they just mean, find your OWN place!
Btw, I would think some would appreciate that a duck could find a nap and a snack - and not worry about magnum loads in it's rear, all the time.
Thats what private yellow signed lands do for you!

That's pretty laughable, coming from someone who posted this clinker: The CIA being on the ground "weeks" before the SF doesn't change the fact that the ragtag Afghani NA forces were impotent against the Taliban until US technology, highly trained warriors and air power cleared the way. The bearded guys on ponies came in afterward to occupy the killing ground. Americans sure as hell beat the Taliban, and we should be proud of the fact, not denying it.

The Minuteman had his place in history, but it has passed. A single US infantryman today has more firepower, support and training than all the folks at Lexington and Concord together (on both sides!). ARs may be good for plinking, hole-punching, maybe some hunting, and dreams-of-glory fantasizing, but I wouldn't bet my life on one against an average police SWAT team, much less a modern soldier.

To tell the truth, I am slightly afraid to even post on this subject.
I have loved guns my whole life and I ain't no spring chicken. Yet, I have always been troubled by the gun violence in this free land of ours. And, it does seem that the knee jerk reactions of the anti-gun crowd and the opposite knee jerk reaction from the "pry it from my cold dead fingers" crowd miss the point.
So, to what do we attribute the firearm violence in the U.S.? Isn't that what the anti gun crowd is really concerned about? And, shouldn't those of us who love guns also have some concern? Why does a country like Canada have a very well armed population, at least as far as long arm hunting weapons, and yet, have a miniscule firearm crime rate?
Is there any way to legislate or educate or somethingate the U.S. population to stop the unbelievable gun violence we live with every single day? Anyone care to try a discourse on that?
Or, am I missing the point? Is this just about some imagined need for an armed insurrection against some facist government that is gonna come and git us?
Best, Jake

What I find odd is that this is the first thread on this subject I've seen anywhere in which the Franklinian "all hang together or or all hang separately" guys have held their water long enuf for a discussion to develop about 1) which gun ownership rights follow from the documents of the Founding Fathers and which are customary privileges, 2) the role and effectiveness of small arms in modern warfare, 3) the role and effectiveness of military designs on small game, 4) the undeniable effects of population density and residential development on hunting opportunities. As all know, accomodation and compromise are emotionally-charged words among gun-rights advocates precisely because there has been accomodation and compromise aplenty and will be more no doubt. I'm not ready to abandon the old Marine long-range shooters or the "tacticals" either and I don't particularly care if you combine Harris tweed with a black pistol grip for that matter (could well be the feature combination next banned given the stupidity of the antis). To be blunt, I don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about "Abdul can get you anything you want" or the fellow with the modern Gatling design and a piece of armour down some long lane in MD. These are not the men I'm going to throw in with no matter what they promise by way of political influence. I'll hang by myself for what I am before I hang together for something I ain't.

jack

I think everyone here would come to our Great Nations home defense if need be.
I think that's what was meant in the constitution with the 'Right to Bear Arms' the protection of ones property and the protection of our great country shores....not because of some imaginary levee breaking and our country falling apart. The USA is here to stay.
The 'right' that needs to be addressed is mans right to hunt.

The way I see it with politics as they are...we as gun owners can make some concessions or have them forced upon us. Call me a sheep,wolf or what ever, I call it having a little common sense.

Unlike some New Yorkers I have no desire to see Hillary Clinton at the wheel.

So, the bad luck you had in charm school, and, keyboarding skills was complimented by a big, fat F grade in constitutional studies, eh jOe?

It's all water under the bridge now, but, if you are hiking in as far as you say you are (turkeys can be found along just about any roadside in Anoka county these days, so I don't understand why you have to go in so deep, unless the turkeys studied harder then you did in school) lay off the HoHos, Lays, and Mountain Dew, buddy.

An apple a day, just might keep the EMTs away, you know. If you have any adult teeth left, it'll be better in the long run for them, as well.

Like I said, the bruising about the head and groin will be a no charge gift to go with the coronary first response care. Be gone in a 'coupla weeks. The bypass surgery will slow you down for a few months, however.

The thought of CPR on someone described above is disgusting, but, saving a life is always worth it, right?

Right? Anyone?
Best,
Ted

"Unlike some New Yorkers I have no desire to see Hillary Clinton at the wheel".

Whenever I go home to New York to visit, I can't find one person who voted for her.

It makes you wonder who the heck is voting for her then.

It has to be Buffalo and NYC.

Seems to me that we have been compromising for the past fifty years. Another 20 years of common sense and there will be nothing left to comporomise.

I can remember taking my .22 to shop class in school and the teacher and I made a new stock for it.
We were able to walk down country roads with a gun, during hunting season without causing much alarm.

You can't even drive down some roads sightseeing without someone calling the law fearing your a threat in some areas.
Alarming?
Perhaps, but so are many other changes, we so sheepishly accept.

Pick your side and fight the battle, the war will find you regardless.

If there's a battle over RKBA, it won't be won by crouching behind the 2nd Amendment, muttering threats and brandishing an AR.

If you want to win the battle:
- support an RKBA organization
- work for habitat
- teach kids firearm safety
- talk one-on-one with your political representatives
- participate in political caucuses - and not just from one party. The environmentalists nailed their flag to one party's mast, and it has cost them these past six years! The Second Amendment belongs to Democrats as well as Republicans.

Ted Schefelbein....are you sure you are a US citizen ?

The FBI should consider profiling yOu...you seem like one sick puppy. Better get your medication checked bud.

Be Civil Joe.
I saw this played out in South Africa over a period of years. In the early '80's the law was changed to limit ownership to 12 guns. The Gun Owners used the same logic as Joe and said "Well we really don't NEED that gun".
Then in 2003 the law was changed to 4.
Now the Gov'mint is confiscating the fine doubles of people who "Don't NEED them". They are not issuing permits to PH's either in many cases.
"Do you really NEED that Holland & Holland 450/400. That's a self described Dangerous cartridge. Oh "dangerous game". Well we meant well to keep you from hurting someone." A friend lost a H&H Royal. Don't say it can't happen.

Oh..I'll be civil with WaycO'Teddy...You think he's sweet on me ?

Jack,
What you say is correct. Teach a kid to shoot and protect the enviornment so that he can continue to shoot. Form common ground. Don't cultivate divisiveness.
Environmentalists and environmentalism in this country started with the hunting crowd. I bet most of the members here know that. Without T. Roosevelt there would be no national park system. Teddy was hated in the west because he wanted to preserve the land. The landowners wanted no restrictions.
It is the hunters who most understand and appreciate true nature and understand how quickly it is lost forever. Ducks unlimited has probably bought and preserved more wetlands than any organization or government.
How did it get to be that Democrats became the enemy and all issues are black and white and divided by party? Why would people who love guns and hunting call people who happen to be in a different political party "enviornmental wackos" (in the words of that esteemed fount of conservative wisdom, Russ Limbaugh and his ilk.)?
I have never understood the rancor and personal attacks engendered by someone with a slightly different political view?
Ted, (and jOe to the extent it applies) I think intellegent discourse is enlightening and provides room for common ground. Why do we need to move it to personal attacks and name calling? Does that somehow help us convince the other person? Somehow, that has not been my experience.
Best to All, Jake

I imagine the Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians and Egyptions had the same feeling about their dynasties, "here to stay".

Unfortunatly, if one is willing to compromise the strengths of our consitution and ALL of its tenants, where does it stop? Me thinks the "foot in the door" analogy is one that is cogent to the discussion of our Second Amendment Rights. Any and all erosion of rights start as a small crack that will eventually become an irreversable slide if allowed to continue.

I think you read a little more into my logic than I actually meant....my Logic was come up with some 'new logic' not just stand all gun issues on the second ammendment.

I'm not a democrat or a republican in my oppinion both parties suck.
I vote Rebulican because I'm a member of the NRA.

Did you guys watch Wayne LaPiere debate that women kook from Australia a few years back ?
I just think the NRA needs some new ammo besides just standing there quoting the second ammendment.

Naw I don't think so j0e, we've all seen your turkey huntin' picture!

No doubt, and they would be confused by those largely on the political left wanting to ban guns. Without the samples of quotes that I posted originally along with the mountain of evidence of others that exist in support of the 2nd amendment being an individual right, I could understand the potential for different interpretations. However, with all the evidence that I've mentioned, it provides a construction for the individual rights interpretation. As Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook put it, if there is any proof of the 2nd amendment ever being intended as a collective right by the founders of this nation, it is the world's best kept secret.

Now what is that supposed to mean Lowell.

"You think he's sweet on me," meaning Ted.

I bet he dreams about me.

Would you like that j0ey?

I don't think I have a choice Lowell..

This is all quite interesting.

To check out the real world, go to NRA-ILA's website and read about HR 1022, introuduced in the House of Reps. There you will see the goal of the anti-gun crowd.

Give one inch and your goose is cooked.

Better start honing your skills with a slingshot.

JM, I'm not a constitutional scholar and I'm not going off for a couple of pages to become one but, surprise, surprise, I agree that the right to "keep and bear" has always meant to me you get to go home with the one you brung or the one they issued rather than it's locked in the armory and someone else has the key. I also believe the Bill of Rights was aimed at protection of individual liberty, expression, and self-betterment from the incursions of government. Too bad the founders didn't use the words "right of persons" or "right of individuals" but they used "right of the people". Could be some of them would have preferred words like freeholders or enfranchised males or the gentlemen in this room and a few who couldn't make it but they didn't and the Supreme Court has been left the task of levering the nation to and fro based on convenient, useful and even occasionally high-minded readings of their instructions.

I also think that given our self-serving attitude which takes the means (right to keep and bear) as timeless truth and tosses out the end (well-regulated militia), it's time we found a new hideout as our strict constructions appear to me to be highly selective in regard to text and reprehensibly myopic about what constitutes the general good. H. Joe uses the word levee several times in just about any way he chooses, as he is a free-speller, God bless him. I'd say the next time the levee breaks (literally) might be a dandy idea to have a levy of the possessors of the timeless rights; you could take your old Starling scarer and pull guard on a Walmart. Of course the Guard (thank em so much 'n all) could perform this collective effort but they appear to be busy elsewhere. We could call it something like Civilian Corps if that didn't offend the free-wheeling sensibilities of the noble fraternity of gun-ownership. All I got to say.

jack

Dodging your own "facts" from your previous post, Jack? Some leopards never change their spots. You had SF teams calling in airstrikes. Here is the ACCURATE chronology:

26 Sept--CIA team "boots on the ground" with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
7 October--Bombing campaign begins
19 October--First SF Team (OD-555, "Triple Nickel") boots on ground with the Northern Alliance
Clever of those SF guys to call in airstrikes a couple weeks before they got there.

Once more, Jack--air power alone has never won a war, and it sure as heck did not win that one. Yes, we should be proud of what we did in Afghanistan--but we should also recognize the fact that initially, virtually ALL the ground troops (and yes, there was heavy fighting on the ground) were Afghans of the Northern Alliance.

Do your reading assignment; get your facts straight.

Brown: I don't "dodge" facts. And I don't flyspeck posts, looking for ways to wriggle out from my mistakes.

When I pointed out the absurdity of your claim that the Afghans "beat" the Taliban, you couldn't admit your blunder. Instead, you nitpicked whether it was SF or CIA that called in the air strikes that shattered them!

The NA had been driven back into the mountains and controlled only 10% of Afghanistan before 9/11, their only unifying leader, Massoud, was dead, and the Northern Alliance was at risk of crumbling. As you should know, the CIA had been 'on the ground' with the NA years before 9/11 - not "weeks" before the NA offensive - and had had little success in getting in US support. The outlook for the Afghans was bleak.

Only after 9/11, when the US got serious about al Qaeda and - after an ultimatum - took on the Taliban, did the NA begin to move. And then only after they got serious support from America and could witness the devastating power of US air support. Americans beat the Taliban - the Afghans just did the mopping up.

I admit that, although SF spotters did in fact call in air strikes, they weren't the first US teams to do so (did I ever say they were?). Now, Larry, can you admit you got the victors wrong?

Jack (Rabbit) -

I'm no constitutional scholar either, though I've read some 2nd Amendment scholarship. Fortunately the Bill of Rights is a short collection, and a quick read reveals the word "people" used in several amendments. Seems unreasonable to argue that the word means something different from one amendment to the next. If one grants that premise, the 10th Amendment is instructive in making a clear distinction between states and people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Historical period writings provide context for understanding the framer's meaning, and resolve any ambiguity related to modern interpretations of the word "militia". The problem isn't finding the framer's meaning. It's that too many don't care, or willfully ignore it to pursue what they believe are higher values.

I don't hold to the Platonic notion that rights exist outside the realm of power to preserve or enforce them. If the people choose other values as higher than the 2nd Amendment, they can repeal it. But the gun-haters instead choose to twist and degrade our language.

Jay

". . . or willfully ignore it to pursue what they believe are higher values." Quite right, Jay, IMO. Let he who has not sinned etc.

jack

rabbit, I'm not surprised at all...

By the sound of some of the posts on this board and the way some have ripped into each other the anti-gunners have already won.

Here's what Zumbo said...

"I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods".


In some states they are illegal now.

Does a state law effect our 2nd Amendment rights ?

Not entirely clear how far a state or local government could go (likely farther in the 9th Cir., and not so far in the 5th Cir.), but states and local governments have a measure of power to regulate gun ownership and the view that the Second Amendment applies only to restrict federal action is pervasive.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php?PHPSESSID=32c6ea9ee7e8a784465a2b36d3b1f9ce

I hear Outdoor Life has fired Mr.Zumbo...I hope he sues Outdoor Life for violation of his right to 'Freedom of Speech.

What I find real funny about this whole thread is all the great minds on here ....that didn't even bother to read what Zumbo really said before they jumped up to defend their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Kind of like an angry lynch mob.

ps...Ted Blather you can put the shovel up the Levees okay for now.

The Constitution trumps all state laws, period. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be infringed by the states. But they can be 'interpreted,' and it's there - in the details - that the devil lies.

The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the role of arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. On any Constitutional right, the Court can take a restrictive interpretation (i.e., Federal Firearms Act of 1938), or an expansive one (Roe v. Wade).

These interpretations can vary or even change radically, depending on the makeup of the court and the politics of the time. That is why it is important for gun owners to be politically active, and not just depend on the Second Amendment for protection.

The 14th amendment clearly addresses this issue. States in the antebellum south tried to use the excuse that the Constitution was only a restriction on the federal government and that the states could place restrictions on rights. It was merely a cover for the south to exclude blacks and deny them their rights. The excuse that you might hear today from local governments to violate or deny peoples rights is "home rule" or "local control".

The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You know these constitutional gymnastics happen this time of year. Once they get it out of their system, we'll all feel much better.

I see MSN now has a article, written by Blaine Hardin of the Washington Post on the Zumbo debacle!

Posted on Sun, Feb. 25, 2007
Critics taking aim at famous hunter
By BLAINE HARDEN
The Washington Post

SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures nationwide and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site Feb 16. The posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. ... I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles nationwide, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.

His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gun making, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment.

"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," said Todd W. Smith, Outdoor Life's editor in chief.

Blaine Harden's article was printed in yesterday's Washington Post, page 3, with a picture of Zumbo with a large dead bear. As with anything that "makes" the Post, it conveys the idea that NRA and its members are heavy handed in their outrage. However, even the anti-gunners on this site have to admit that firing or discontinuing requested services from a contractor or employee that can no longer make your company money is a common phenomenon in the business world. I doubt that any lawsuit brought by Zumbo against Outdoor Life or anyone else would get past the parking lot of the court house. As in the real world, the antis on this forum do not present a very good case for taking our guns away. If our antis think that Zumbo has not provided well for his retirement, send him a check. I'm sure his 401K looks a lot better than mine.

The issue broadly comes down to security on one side and freedom, liberty and justice on the other. On the same day Ms Rice was in Canada last week on that shadowy "partnership" arrangement between US, Mexico and Canada, our Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there is no security without freedom. Canada won't lock up suspected terrorists forever without some process that allows a hearing of the evidence against them, which exists in Great Britain. Terrorism will be handled as the crime it is.

All here know that that this can't be conjugated easily, in the same way as Americans---as I understand from their carefully measured comments here about the US Constitution and the Bill, national and state rights etc---grapple with security and freedom issues involving their domestic and national interests. But the essence of the SCOC ruling, applauded by the country, was that Canada will not lose itself through fear.

Risk is our abiding companion. Nothing is safe and nothing is certain. Canada has sacrificed mightily to empire. British and Canadian casualties in the single battle at Passchendaele in 1917 were greater than all US losses in both world wars. Liberal is not a despised word in Canada. A conservative government presides. A strong country's only fear, as FDR said, is fear itself.

Friends may talk candidly to friends. Canada's friendship and trade relations with the US is the envy of the world. We are the country's biggest energy supplier. A billion trade dollars crosses our border every day. "Foreigner" is not in the Canadian lexicon for "American." A cultural difference may be a finely tuned antennae to fearmongering on domestic (i.e. gun laws) and national (i.e. security) issues. It's puzzling to me to read of American concerns of eroding liberty in a country that is so uniquely secure.

Joe - What makes you think no one but you read what Zumbo said? This conversation happened to go beyond his ill-begotten statement. By the way, he has no "freedom of speech" grounds to sue his employer. He can write or say anything he wants, and they can edit his writing or fire him because they own the magazine and can publish or not publish whatever they want.

Jakearo,
Did I call someone a name? What was that name?

Hey, I'm deeply worried about jOe's health. The likelyhood of a breakdown in society is pretty slim, but, the same can't be said of his chances of a grand mal coronary event. The prodding might get him to a healthier lifestyle, and maybe a personal trainer, and a 38" or so waist trouser, which might keep him in the hunt a bit longer.


Nobody wants to be the poster boy for that.

You know, he is deeply worried about the guns I own and all, and whether they fit his criteria of "hunting guns". So I'm just returning a favor, that's all.
Best,
Ted

Once again-Aw rats, Mr. Zumbro.
Best,
Ted

Thanks King for your last reply. We allow too many of our leaders from both parties to play upon our fears. They call it "energizing the base." Our leaders have tried to reduce government to catchy slogans and spin such as "Mission Accomplished," and "Stay the Course," and now a "New Way Forward." We allow ourselves to be led like sheep as policticans play to our basest fears. I have quoted the current administration here for the sake of convienence, but I do realize that both parties are equally culpable.

I hold dearly our rights and freedoms as an American as I can see all of us on this site do. We keep refering back to the Constitution and of course, the 2nd Amendment. What strikes me so much about this document is how much thought and consideration went into every word. What we know about the deliberations in Philadelphia and afterword reveal much candid discussion and debate, but no appealing to energize the base out of fear.

I can say without a doubt, that no one on this site is an "anti," when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights. We do not need any more polarization on any issue. We all love our freedoms and cherish where we live. We have far more in common than we do not.

Best,

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Who cares what Zumbo said. He paid for it which means no one else in the industry will electrocute himself on this fence for awhile. I'm more interested in what HR-1022 says and what the NRA says it says.

jack

We can for now only hope the above statement that the 14th amendment contains all the answers to the issue of a state or local government's right to regulate firearms ownership. However correct the assertion above may be, the reality is far different for now. Many localities limit firearms ownership and my home state of Illinois further regulates the ownership through the "firearms owner identification card" and the municipality I live in has ordinances against owning high capacity magazines and assault style weapons. All the Constitutional theory in the world isn't worth a "tinker's" in the face of the fact that state and local governments do regulate and restrict the types of firearms citizens can own and do so notwithstanding the 14th amendment. That is not to say that such regulation is Constitutional, but as other very astute posters have pointed out, until these laws are challenged and we have a Supreme Court ruling on these issues, many of us are regulated by our state and local governments and we either comply (as do I) or we run the risk of prosecution.

Unlike the condition of slavery, gun ownership isn't nearly such a popular issue with the general public as was the full realization of the emancipation of the ex-slaves in the ante-bellum years.

Doug

Interesting. Are there any anti-gunners on this site, on this forum or on this thread? I hadn't noticed. Care to elucidate?

We all do what we can!
You vote for the party who'll keep your guns in play.
If you've voted in an Oprah like harpie to Washington this last election - I hope they get you first!

Anyone care to gloss above from HR 1022, Section 3, subparagraph J? If that means what it appears to mean in terms of items not elsewhere enumberated, Zumbo wasn't that far ahead of the curve and should be able to find a job in New York if not necessarily in Ilion.

jack

Doug you are correct in what you have pointed out, that state and local governments are ignoring the 14th amendment. There is no legal precednet for this construction of 2nd amendment rights being violated under the 14th amendment by state and local governments at present since no one has made that challenge that I am aware of. However, like the 2nd amendment itself, there are countless transcripts of the debates over ratification of the 14th amendment in which the violations of the right to keep and bear arms in the antebellum south were a major issue in passing and ratifying the amendment to stop these infringements. During the debates in Congress some former slaves were brought in to testify before Congress about the restrictions and confiscation of firearms in the antebellum south.

"The anticipated results of successful passage and signing into law of House Resolution #1022 are contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers as regards the private ownership of firearms, will place in abeyance the quotidian pursuit of familiarity and proficiency with firearms as expressed in the customary support of the Civilian Marksmanship Program by our Federal Government, and will produce a damping effect on our domestic firearms industry and the de facto reduction of hunting and target-shooting activities without producing the desirable end of reducing violent crime. I request that you review this proposed legislation carefully in the hope that less draconian methods may be found to combat firearms crime. Thank you."

Sent this to my congressmen today. Our discussion of Zumbo really put me off rationalizing away your interests and mine in the bargain.

jack

I sure like the way you write....and you never once called them demi-rats.

My friend King, in his post, seems to assume that fear and a positive attitude toward deprivation of freedoms to protect against perceived terrorist activities are rampant in our country, especially among conservative thinkers and voters. I don't think this is neccesarily true. However, in my opinion, the basic conservative thinking is that liberal thinkers are all too willing to respect and protect governments and religions who not only would, but do, deprive their citizens and opponents of both freedoms and life as a normal course of business. Conservative thinkers in the U.S. have a real problem with this thought process and, frankly, do not understand it. A citizenry has to take some action to protect its welfare, sometimes at the expense of a "warm and fuzzy" relationship with those who would bury them.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Ben Franklin

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."

Clarence Darrow

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."

Dorothy Thompson

"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you."

Ramsey Clark

"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Edward R. Murrow

Never thought I'd see anyone cite Ramsey Clark in defense of the Second Amendment!



As Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, Ramsey Clark restructured federal prisons to stress the importance of rehabilitation and early release. He oversaw the first federal gun-control law to be enacted in over thirty years - the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Ramsey Clark subsequently acted as counsel for North Vietnamese Communists and Iran’s Islamic dictatorship, and more recently volunteered to act as defense counsel for Saddam Hussein.

I'm putting a plug in for that other defence lawyer who saved a family friend from execution. Clarence Darrow set up the defence for George Harsh, as he did for Leopold and Loeb several years earlier. George served 12 years on a Georgia chain gang, pardoned for a couple heroic acts, turned down offers from Mafia, joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and served with distinction during operations and notably as the security chief in Stalag Luft III for The Great Escape.

His autobiography "Lonesome Road" (Norton) Library Congress No. 69-14699 typically of George doesn't tell how he saved more than 100 Georgia black prisoners chained together in their cellblock during a fire. George wasn't doing well in an American veterans hospital after the war so my father and Wally Floody, RCAF Spitfire pilot and the tunnelling chief engineer, brought him back to Canada where he died in Sunnybrook Veterans Hospital in Toronto, January 24, 1980.

George is an unsung American hero. His book is a masterpiece.

OT - but the historian in me couldn't let the bolded comment go. No question Canada suffered terribly at 3rd Ypres, and pproportionately very highly in the world wars. That said, the statement is untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Ken

Thanks, Ken, I'll check source which I think was recent New York Review for Passschendaele and I have the official WW1 histories. A glance at your source indicates Canadian (65,000) combined with British totalled 950,000 deaths compared to US 116,000.

Actually, the US lost far more men in the Battle of the Bulge, 12/1944 - 100,000 casualties (19,000 killed) - than the Canadians lost at Passchendaele - 16,000 dead and wounded combined. But there is no point in playing a numbers game - as John Donne said, "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind."


The real tragedy at Passchendaele was the loss of so many good men for so little gain, so little reason.

Right on, jack. That's the figure I've found for Passchendaele so far, 16,000, and primed by our General Currie, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden, in London for meetings at the Imperial War Cabinet, told Prime Minister Lloyd George that "if there is ever a repetition of Passenchendaele, not a Canadian soldier will leave the shores of Canada so long as the Canadian people entrust the Government of my country to my hands." For all the good it did. We had already lost 25,000 fighting barely seven weeks on the Somme. It was only part of the butcher's bill.

(A friend has a presentation 12ga Parker to Sir Robert Borden, of Nova Scotia.)

Some of Mr. Lawson's quotes could be used both in defense of second amendment rights and as a criticism of present day perceived deprivation of rights by our current administration. Obviously, the Ramsey Clark quote sounds good to some of us, but I would not be inclined to use more than the principle apparently referred to in the quote, because of its dubious source. If ever there were a series of quotes leaving doubt as to the intent of the user of the quotes, this was it. I think some of the posters here are trying to sound like "gun people" while using this thread to indicate that some of us, the current administration included, are a little too protective of both our rights and safety, while sacrificing some of the rights of those who are our enemies. We started this discussion by debating whether someone who criticizes his sponsors and employers should be secure in his contracts and his job. Where are we now?

For Mr. Zumbo, my quick answer is that when you accept money from mission-oriented agencies---Outdoor Life, whose mission to make a profit and inform---you usually wind up accepting their mission. If you don't, you're a dead duck unless you're working for another mission-oriented agency, government, protected by whistle-blower laws. He wasn't.

Not to mention that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a near verbatim copy of the Nazi Weapons Law 1938. Sen. Thomas Dodd (D-CT) who wrote the Gun Control Act 1968 was part of the legal team that prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremburg(sp). Dodd's duties were to review the Nazi laws. In the transcripts of a Senate sub-committee hearing on the Gun Control Act of 1968, there is a letter from Lewis C. Coffin, who was a law librarian at the Library of Congress, returning a translated copy of the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938 and the original document supplied by Dodd to his office.

And here I thought that my post would be immediately followed by a couple of posts attempting to blow me and my comments out of the water. Thanks.

Why would anyone do that, eightbore? On the evidence here, everyone loves you.

King, regardless of what I sometimes (almost) read into your posts, you are pretty well respected here yourself, yes, by me too. Did I say that right??

Joe, I was instructed by the NRA site to keep it respectful. Only Moses is allowed to chew the scenery.

jack

JM: I must have missed the part of the Nazi Weapons Law 1938 where it talks about interstate commerce, mail-order firearms and FFLs. Also missed the 1968 GCA references to Jews. Could you fill us by comparing 'near verbatim' sections? Thanks!

Eightbore, you got that right. I think we should be able to say anything to friends as long as the principals know that no one is being mean or mischievous.

Jack, The letter that I mentioned can be found in this transcript:
Hearings Before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Ninetieth Congress

2nd Session,

Pursuant to, S. Res. 240, Ninetieth Congress, on S.3961, S.3604, S. 3634, S. 3637, June 26, 27, 28 and July 8, 9, 10, 1968.

A copy of the Gun Control Act 1968, along with the Subcommittee hearings, testimony, and accompanying information such as the letter should be available from your Congressman.

Getting a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law 1938 is not difficult, but I hope you can understand German. If I recall, the JPFO use to have a translated copy.

JM - maybe we need a little 'tongue in cheek' icon. I asked for examples of 'near verbatim' copy between the 1938 Nazi Weapons law and the 1968 Gun Control Act, because I am pretty certain they don't exist. The JFPO material qualifies as 'urban myth.'

There were at least two weapons laws promulgated by the Hitler regime in 1938. The first, on March 18, was primarily an extension of the Weimar Republic's 1928 gun law, which already required gun owner licensing, gun registration and put restrictions on importation, sale and possession of various types of weapons. If anything, that earlier 1928 law came closest to our 1968 GCA, but it was nowhere close to 'verbatim.' Hitler's March 1938 law restricted handguns, but also made it easier for 'persons of good reputation' (i.e., Nazi party members) to get them.

The second law, published in Reichsgesetzblatt 188 on November 11, 1938, specifically placed weapons restrictions on Jews. Again, no language even remotely resembling GCA 1968.

The claim that Nazi weapons laws somehow set an ominous pattern for US gun control is bogus, IMHO. In 1938, Hitler was tremendously popular in Germany, there was no viable opposition and no possibility of one, guns or no guns.

The notion that the 1938 gun laws led to, or contributed significantly to, the Holocaust is equally specious. Nazi intentions had been spelled out long before (see Mein Kampf). By 1938 German Jews were already suffering oppression and confiscation of properties. Gun and owner registration had already been in effect for 10 years. Even had guns been readily available to Jews, they would also be available to the overwhelming majority of non-Jewish Germans who happily supported Hitler in his anti-Semitic campaign. The idea of an armed Jewish uprising in Hitler's Germany is preposterous.

Our own home-grown gun grabbers are scarey enough - we don't need to make up Nazi bogeyman stories.

Regardless of the accuracy of the material put out by the Jewish gun rights organization, the point is that many segments of the U.S. Jewish population are notorious liberals, probably vote for anti gun candidates. This organization is a bright light. I have been very supportive of the "organization" ever since I was introduced to it several years ago. Their rhetoric convinces me that there is diversity in Jewish political persuasion, something I didn't realize before. I am not sure what the gun rights attitude is among the Jewish population as a whole, but my many Jewish shooting and collecting buddies sure know how to spend their mad money. I assume their opinions about gun rights are reflected in their spending habits.

I'd say you were right.

We can't afford to be "regardless of the accuracy of the material" - if we are, it puts us in the same ethical position as our opponents.

Politically motivated urban legends such as Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy," Dan Rather's manufactured attack on Bush's service, and Al Gore's "stolen victory" in 2000 are no less valid than the "1968 GCA verbatim from Hitler's gun laws."

The truth is our best weapon against gun control - let's not tarnish it.

Jack wrote:
"I asked for examples of 'near verbatim' copy between the 1938 Nazi Weapons law and the 1968 Gun Control Act, because I am pretty certain they don't exist. The JFPO material qualifies as 'urban myth.'"

(Well, what about the letter to Dodd's office? Is that a "myth"?So in other words, you're not willing to find out for yourself, you simply want to be told what is and what is not? Telling you will likely not change anything since you've already seem to have made up your mind that it doesn't exist. Regardless of what I post, you'll simply put your head in the sand and pretend it does not exist.
The Nazi Weapons Law 1938 copy that I have consists of 10 pages of very small print and GCA 1968 is 13 pages. When I get home this evening I'll look for my digital camera and I will take a picture of the copies that I have and upload it on my site. I hardly have time to post, and you think I can sit here and type out duplicates of the Nazi Weapons Law 1938 and GCA 1968 just for you to sit there and say it isn't so because you don't want to get them yourself and read it? If you've read both as you seem to imply, then what's the point? Perhaps I should ask you to post comparisons where they are different? Get both laws yourself, and then we'll discuss it.)

Jack wrote:
"The notion that the 1938 gun laws led to, or contributed significantly to, the Holocaust is equally specious. Nazi intentions had been spelled out long before (see Mein Kampf). By 1938 German Jews were already suffering oppression and confiscation of properties. Gun and owner registration had already been in effect for 10 years. Even had guns been readily available to Jews, they would also be available to the overwhelming majority of non-Jewish Germans who happily supported Hitler in his anti-Semitic campaign. The idea of an armed Jewish uprising in Hitler's Germany is preposterous."

(This topic was not in my original post. Regardless, I doubt most believe that if the gun control laws had never been passed the genocide would not have occurred. I believe it would have happened anyway, however, without the gun control laws, the death toll would have likely been lower. If it saves one life, it's worth it! Hitler's book was basically taken from Henry Ford's newspaper Dearbourne Independent(sp )


Both laws have these same basic requirements using different wording:
1) person had to meet certain requirements( law abiding, good character).
2) firearms dealers had to record and maintain purchases for the government and get a license.
3) Un-elected civil servants were given powers to decide who could own and carry firearms and what types of firearms can be owned
4) The classification of sporting purpose firearms (the Nazis actually coined the term "assault weapon").
5) transaction records of ammunition (this was repealed in America, though some are trying to bring it back)

Jack, if you refuse to believe this, that's fine, there's no point in going back and forth, but remember this. Most jews thought there was no threat since they had rights and lived in one of the most civilized nations on earth.

Just heard on the radio this morning that in the U.K. there is a group called, "Mothers Against Knifes". They supposedly have the support of several constables and wish to ban certain knifes in the U.K. P.M. Tony Blair apparently loves the idea and has pledged his support. Now that the Brits don't have their gun, they most likely will not have their knifes either. Probably started over an innocent comment made by an outdoor writer while fox hunting.

IM,
Don't worry, they only want to ban assault knives.

As long as they don't ban double barreled knifes, it's O.K. with me.

jack, here's a copy of the letter to Sen. Dodd:

The Library of Congress,
Washington D.C.
July 12, 1968

Hon. Thomas J. Dodd,
Chairman Special Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, U.S. Senate, Washington D.C.

Dear Senator Dodd: your request of July 2, 1968 addressed to the Legislative Reference Service, for the translation of several German laws has been referred to the Law Library for attention.
In compliance with your request and with reference to several telephone conversations between Miss Frank of your Office and Mr. Fred Karpf, European Law Division, we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1968 prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of that Division, as well as the Xerox copy of the original German text which you supplied.
The translation of the Decree implementing the Law on Weapons of March 30, 1938 and the pertinent provisions of the Federal Hunting Law of March 30, 1961, is in preparation and will be sent to you as soon as completed.

Sincerely yours,
Lewis C. Coffin
Law Lirbrarian

A personal note about Jews: I've taken up writing of a book my father started on the Jews in 1993, the year he died. We worked on it together, he writing, I dogging files. Jews are as disparate in opinions as others but liberty, freedom, the individual are their taproots. Those countries that were good to Jews---and none opened their doors wider than the United States---prospered and those who didn't declined, in a general sense. Israel today struggles as we do to balance liberty and security, freedom and fear, knowing liberty must triumph always to preserve its soul.

Friends:

I will weigh in on this again. I am home with a sick 2nd grader, so I have a few moments.

Anecdote:

Growing up in Dallas in the late '60's, early '70's, my soccer coach was a man named Mike J. Mr. J. had a long string of blue numbers tattoed on his left forearm. Fascinated me. I asked him once "what are those tattoos". He grimaced in reply: "My inventory control number". Found out later that he was an Auschwitz survivor. Stuck with me quite a while. Like, to this very day.

In Jr. High, I was friends with his daughter, and visited their house on occasion. He and I talked about life before and during the war. I asked "why didnt yall fight when the Geheime Staatspolizei came for you?" I remember him looking at me for a long time before he responded, in heavily accented English :

"Ve hatt no ARMS! "

I remembered that.

Deb and I were playing ping-pong one evening and I wound up stepping on the loose ball. The spares were in the game room closet, and I was asked to get a spare ball. When I opened the closet, I noticed in the back corner was a military rifle. Being a 14 year old "gun-guy", I readily identified it as Mauser Kar 98. On the shelf next to the ping-pong balls was a box stock GI .45 auto, very much like the Government Model my Dad kept in his sock drawer. Next to the pistol were 2 boxes of ammo- 8mm and .45 ACP.

I wonder why this Jewish guy, who didnt hunt or fish or target shoot, kept a Mauser and a .45 in his closet? Maybe he didnt like the idea of : " Ve hatt no ARMS!"

End of anecdote.

To some folks this is just a meaningless story. Would the genocide have occurred had the Jews of Germany and East Europe been armed? Who knows. But it sure is more difficult for the Einsatztrüppen to carry out their activities if the objects of their attention shoot back. And even if their efforts are unsuccessful , the Untermensch could at least die like men, and not like cattle.

I dont look for black helicopters, and I believe that vigorous political activity will preserve our freedom, as it has in the past. I hold fast to the rights guaranteed me under the Constitution, and when well-meaning foreigners suggest to me that those rights are really fungible, I truly can say: "ya'll ain't from around here". To the citizenry of this republic who think rights derive from some royal largesse, I suggest that they re-read the Federalist Papers and take a remedial 8th grade civics class. The whole genesis of this American polity is based on the idea that some rights are natural, and do not depend on the State or Crown for their existence. Unfortunately, this is the way the English think - there are no rights in England which do not exist unless Parliament says so, and they exist only as long as Parliament thinks they are a good idea. See the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It got incovenient, and was repealed. Now they debate whether trial by jury should be repealed.

I am sorry certain folks find my black rifle troubling. Hmm... on second thought, no I dont. Freedom is uncomfortable, and the only folks who think the world can be one giant Kum-ba-ya group hug is Al Gore and the Europeans.

I guess I'll keep my black rifle and my other guns. The neat thing about a right is that I dont have to justify it to anyone. And any time I might be tempted to waffle, or to slide down that slippery slope of: "just give up some of your rights and we promise... promise... promise to respect you in the morning..." , I remember my soccer coach with the tatooed numbers on his forearm "Ve hat no ARMS!"

Regards

GKT

JM: The letter only says Dodd got a document translated. It doesn't equate to proof of "near verbatim" grafting of Nazi law into the 1968 Federal Firearms Act.

Some of the 1968 requirements you cite - record keeping, restrictions on types of firearm, restrictions on individuals, etc. - were in the U.S. National Firearm Act of 1934 (predating the Nazi law) and Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (contemporary with the Nazi law). Gun laws in Germany in the 1920s were far worse.

From the day he took power, Hitler had all the legal support he needed for confiscating any and every firearm in Germany. Gun registration and gun owner permits had already been required for years. The police and Gestapo were confiscating guns from Jews as early as 1934.

The 1938 Nazi weapons law was in some ways more liberal than the 1928 German weapons law under the Weimar republic (which, ironically, was intended to disarm the Nazis). Restrictions on long guns were dropped, persons holding a hunting license did not need a weapons permit, age of legal firearms ownership dropped from 20 to 18. The Nazis were strong promoters of firearm training, especially for young people. Their young people.

Sen. Thomas Dodd was a drunkard, a crook and a gun-grabbing fool. But he wasn't so stupid that he had to crib gun control laws from the most hated regime of the 20th century. It doesn't pay to underestimate your enemies.

If I were a robber or burglar, I would choose the home with no gun to break into.

If I were a government and I knew my target had weapons, I might think twice before messing with them. I might still do it but I would think twice before doing it. If I were on the fence regarding the decision, I might decide against it because of the weapons.

As long as I have weapons, I could ban together with others and cause a lot of chaos (sound like the Middle East). Having that knowledge a government decision might be swayed.

If it was a strong decison, then I have no doubts the government would proceed and the guns will make little difference. Just an annoyance to them.

Since you asked, someone is incredibly naive if they don't think eventually the number will come up for every type of gun. Pandering or attempting to sell out someone else because they own different firearms is nothing short of cowardice. I consider most rifle owners brothers. I wish it could be said of a few more upland hunters and shotgunners.

On that subject, I am often struck by the thought:
How many of the " ban them - get the guns out of the house" cabal, would be willing to put a sticker on their front door and windows:

"Gun Free Zone - No guns in this home- Occupants totally unarmed"

Again, just a thought.

Of course, most of those folks have private security guards, or police officers as a "security detail" at their beck and call.

Just another thought.
Regards

GKT

Greg, others have commented more informatively on guns against fascism and I can only add that the Jews who could get out did and those who couldn't went to the camps. There was no other way. Fascism was wildly popular in Germany. Any notions of armed resistance must consider Warsaw and, to really put a fine point on it, the early French and British military performance against the most professional and powerful forces the world had ever seen. If the Brits, if the 51st Highlanders couldn't make a dent, how could the Jews?

Jack,

The letter proves that Dodd had in his possession a translated copy of the German law prior to writing GCA'68 (Gun Control Act 1968). The obvious question that you refuse to speculate or even consider is WHY? Rep. John Dingle (D-Michigan) made some objections in the House debate over this law that it resmebled too closely the NLW'38 (Nazi Law on Weapons 1938). He was attacked by Senator Tydings (D-MD) who I believe was from Maryland, and Dingle backed down. Why did this happen if they were not alike?

NFA'34 only put restrictions and a prohibitive tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns only. GCA'68 and NLW'38 placed very similar restrictions on firearms dealers, transfers, and citizen possession that was applied to every gun.

BATF form 4473 and the Nazi Firearm Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which these laws created are very similar. They require almost identical information about the purchaser and the firearm.

Answer me straight up: Have you read both of these laws and compared them side by side?

Kingsley:

Parse this logically, and consider just what you have said.

Let me see. It would have been bad for the Jews to have been armed because their chance of sucess would have been low?

10,000 poorly armed starving wretches, who FOUGHT in the Warsaw Ghetto tied the Nazi police state in knots for a month. Most died. Most would have died anyway.

100,000 Jews on Krystallnacht or the the time peroid of the aftermath. They were not armed - most died. If they had been armed, most would have died. Some however, might not have. I know given a choice of being a helpless victim, or being a COMBATANT, which one I would choose. Its one thing to die in battle, quite another thing to be slaughtered like cattle.

My leftist friends seem to think there is some sort of moral superiority to be gained by achieving the status of "victimhood". I havent bought into that lie yet.

Regards

GKT

JM: I'm amazed such a lame conspiracy theory continues to circulate. Think about it. The letter is dated July 12, 1968. By the time that letter was written, most of the GCA provisions had gone through congressional hearings for years and the language was largely in place. So why did Dodd, after 7 years of working on gun control legislation (he started in 1961), suddenly ask for a copy of the Nazi law?

Probably because Rep. John Dingell, in a hearing before Dodd's committee, compared the proposed legislation to the 1938 Nazi law! If you were accused of copying something, wouldn't you want to check it out? Do you really imagine that on such a controversial topic, Dodd could read a document in mid-July, draw up a "near verbatim copy" and make it a law by October?

To be fair - if you understood the legislative process, you wouldn't have been suckered by the JFPO conspiracy theory. I've had considerable experience with state and federal legfislation. It can take years to get any major legislation drawn up, run through committees, redrawn, compromises hammered out, passed by the House, sent to the Senate, more hearings, more compromises, passed by the Senate, sent to conference, and finally voted up or down. The notion that a senator can scribble out a highly controversial law and make it happen in three months is ridiculous. So the date on the letter itself disproves the JPFO conspiracy theory.



Yes.

Well then, if the law was already crafted long before this time, then why was the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delingquency, which Dodd chaired, meeting on July 8th, 9th, and 10th in 1968 as dated on the Subcommittee Transcript that is on record at the Library of Congress? You don't meet on an investigative committee when the law as you claim was already written. The committee to investigate should have completed its work by then and submitted its findings to the Judiciary Committee if the law was already written. Also, no one is claiming that Dodd started the GCA'68 with this law, but he certainly ended with it. What official documentation do you have that Dodd was working on this bill for 7 years?



That does not answer my question. Why would Dingel compare the proposed bill to NLW'38 if they are not similar?



Yes, I have copies of all three laws, and I have read them. So, let's start discussing the individual laws section by section. Which one do you want to start with. Name the law and secion so there's no misunderstanding.

Oh Sheet. I just realized that if they make guns illegal my retirement is shot to hell. Jake

Not this bill, JM, lots of gun control bills. Quoting from this site: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Vizzard3.htm

Upon assuming the chairmanship of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1961, Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) directed the staff to conduct a study of mail order sales of firearms.[9] After two years of staff study, Senator Dodd introduced his first gun bill, Senate Bill 1975 and opened hearings to generate public interest in the gun issue.[

...During the summer of 1968, gun control advocates in Congress tested the limits of the new policy dynamics with the introduction of bills calling for registration and licensing of firearms...the Dodd subcommittee continued gun control hearings focused almost exclusively on these registration and licensing bills. Although the summer of 1968 marked the high water mark for gun control on the national policy agenda, none of the registration bills came close to passage. In October, Congress passed the GCA to replace Title IV of the Omnibus Act after a spirited debate in both the House and Senate and a flurry of motions by both supporters and opponents of gun control.

Note that it took two years of staff study for Dodd's first GC bill - and you think he wrote one up and whipped it through in 3 months?



Your first question was:



I think I have answered that sufficiently. Now it's your turn to answer the question I posted to you yesterday:

JM: It's verbatim! jm: You inflatem! Praise the Lord and Pass the Hermeneutics.

jack

Greg, I don't know what left or right has to do with the prospects of armed citizens taking on police and military enforcing the law. With all the means at their disposal, Hitler's generals tried twice to assassinate Hitler on the Eastern Front and couldn't penetrate his SS retinue.

There are more Canadians and Americans who currently disagree than agree with their federal government policies. Twice within a week Canada has struck down in Parliament and the Court sections of our anti-terrorism laws. No one here or there would take the law into their own hands.

I was in Oxford in the leafy town square the night General Walker and hundreds of his tough and determined supporters decided to take on the 82nd and 101st Airborne enforcing federal law to enrol James Meredith at Ole Miss. Where the law does not prevail, you have a police state.

You're not talking insurrection, are you? Sacrificing your life because you don't agree with the popular will as expressed in your legislatures? Of course not.

Regards, King

That's the tough part of democracy - you're free to vote your way - but you don't always get your way.

OK, it's settled then. If they vote to confiscate our weapons or our homes, we will obey and turn them over. I don't know how it worked in GB or Australia. Were those gun owners compensated at retail value? I think that would be a better deal than sitting behind the table at a gun show all weekend to sell a few guns. Will they use the Blue Book or a legislated chart of values?

If your local government decides that your house is in a location that is needed for the benefit of the government or the public good the supreme court has ruled they have the right to take it.

In the past this was for new roads, airports, etc. Pretty much only government projects.

Now if they want a strip mall (privately owned) they can take your home and all they have to say is that it is for the public good.

If they take your house getting fair market value can be difficult to determine. Many towns undervalue their appraisals. Few people complain about their appraisals because their taxes are based on a multiplier of that appraisal. Chances are you can get somewhere between the town or county appraised value and market value.

If they can do that I would imagine that a few guns would be no big deal to the government and it is not easy to sue an entity with unlimited money (yours).

That is not what the Supreme Court said. The SC said it's up to the states to regulate this, not the Federal government. After this decision, many states passed laws protecting landowners. This is a basic states rights issue.

Ed - I sincerely hope they ban doubleshotguns before they ban rifles. In fact, I will write my congressman and let him know if they only want to ban double shotguns and leave the rest alone, I will support that. Besides, I'd rather take my chances with "Rambo" taking 30 shots at me with a "military rifle" than standing in front of a 12 gauge.

I live in the middle of deer hunting heaven. And I guarantee you, if you ask most "soccer moms" or sandal wearing suburbanite which "right" they'd rather give up - being able to defend yourself from an intruder or being able to shoot bambi or a bird 1/2 the size of a chicken, guess which one they'll pick?

Wake up. Hunting is dead for a lot of people. There is no right to hunt.

Humor aside, Halvey makes an interesting point. There are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than there are hunters, and gun ownership has gone up even as hunting licenses have gone down. If push came to shove, I'd give up hunting before I'd give up home defense. But if we're politically astute, we won't have to give up either.

King:

As I said - parse the logic of your position very carefully.

Your example is non-functional. The interesting thing is that enrolling James Meredith was supporting and defending the Constitution - "Equal Protection Clause", and all that.

True Natural Rights are not fungible, and are not dependent on the will of a majority. Or on human will at all.

Pretend that a majority in a Legislature passes a law that certain people, say Jews and Gypsies: have no civil rights, no right to life, and are not really people, and they may be shot on sight or sent to , umm.... lets see.. whats a good term... how about Konzentrationslager? After passing such a law, by majority, such people have no rights, right?

You are a journalist. If a majority passes a law requiring licensing of journalists, then thats ok, right?

That is the position you are espousing.

Natural rights transcend majoritarian will. Majorities control policies - not rights.

The Founding Fathers of this country did not suggest the Second Amendment was to settle policy matters - that is anarchy. For you to suggest that that is the position I and others here have presented( the American Classical Constitutionalist position) is silly - and another straw man argument. I would not have expected you to advance that - or perhaps I have been unclear in expressing just WHAT the Second Amendment is for. But , I have used plain English, as have several other folks, so I am led to conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse. The other possibility is that you have such a European idea of rights ( namely that they exist solely as the product of a majoritarian Legislative will - the new "Absolute Monarch" - and can be created and destroyed at the whim of the majority)that we cannot bridge the chasm between us.

I think like an American and you think like a Canadian.

Regards

GKT

A statement to the effect that "A population deprived of its rights should not rebel because they have little chance of winning." is not what U.S. citizens have been taught and it is not part of U.S. history. I must remind some posters that disagreement with government policy beyond writing letters is a part of U.S. history, as recently as...probably yesterday.

Hey King, if you were really here during the Meredith crisis; you would know that the confrontation took place on the Circle at Ole Miss, not the square in Oxford. I call b******t!

Bill, I agree; our history is not one of unvarying consensus. Do you have an approved list of dissenters from the majoritarian viewpoint? IWW on there, is it? Homestead strikers? Chicago 7?

jack

You're right, Bill, in that governments make new polity at home and overseas all the time. Ms Rice promised a new reality in the Middle East and Canada is trying to impose another with Leopard tanks and heavy artillery in Afghanistan.

The issue, I think, is in your previous message: "OK, it's settled then. If they vote to confiscate our weapons or our homes, we will obey and turn them over." Well, I guess so unless you're Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Army.

It seems unlikely to me that a country formed from Revolution and Civil War with the most liberal gun laws in the world would, in the current geopolitcal and domestic climate, beat its swords into spoons and live as lambs.

It's not going to happen. It can't happen. It's not in your bones.

Greg - This is a nice, idealistic notion. But tell me please, if True Natural Rights are not dependent on human will at all, who do I ask to find out what they are? In my world the Bill of Rights is an exemplary product of human will.

Greg: I'm curious to know the "true natural rights" to which you refer. Who gets to define a "true natural right?" Is there a universal consensus on "natural rights?"

Jay, you'd have to admit that there is such a thing as natural law or the unavoidable putting to use of one's God-given equipment; i.e., "run" fast, "bite" deep, "think" up new employment for the jawbone of an ass. As for natural rights, I'm inclined to agree; give em a Magna Charta and they'll take a Bill of Rights. Oddly, in a nice, comfy social compact where you don't have to stay up all night pulling guard, rolling over and exposing one's belly is always in demand.

jack

How long it took to for staff to study one bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with any other bill. If GCA'68 had the same provisions as the other than it would be a valid point. However, it does not, they have completely different provisions. They are not the same so there is no valid comparison.

You suggest that the law was written prior to the letter. Fine, let's make that assumption. Is it your opinion that laws are NOT amended, rewritten, or revised througout the lesilative process? Of course they are. Could Dodd have proposed revising the proposed law? Of course he could. If you have any documented proof that the law was written ahead of time with these provisions that are similar to NLW'38, then I'm all ears. Otherwise it's nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion which is not a metaphysical fact.




No you evaded answering my question about why Dingle compared the GAC'68 to NLW'38.

You stated "Probably because Rep. John Dingell, in a hearing before Dodd's committee, compared the proposed legislation to the 1938 Nazi law! If you were accused of copying something, wouldn't you want to check it out? Do you really imagine that on such a controversial topic, Dodd could read a document in mid-July, draw up a "near verbatim copy" and make it a law by October?"

That answers nothing about why Dingle mentioned the laws were alike. You only talked about why Sen. Tydings attacked Dingle. Nice try. Now for the third time: Why did Dingle compare GCA'68 to NLW'38?



Certainly, I will not however, type out both laws for you since you claim to have read these. In NWL'38 Section II Manufacture of Firearms and Ammunition requires a license for those who want to manufacture firearms and ammunition as does section 923 Licensing of GCA'68. I also mentioned specific points where these two laws are alike in one of my earlier posts.

Now it's your turn to pick some sections from both laws for us to discuss.

MS, on Oxford, were you there? A confrontation between Walker's men and the military was in the square, recorded by my CBC Television crew. Walker's troop formed at one end and the airborne at the other, illuminated by street lights piercing the trees. The infantry was at ease while the civilians, throwing rocks and bottles advanced across the square. Then it formed a line, fixed bayonets with a hair-raising snick-sound, advanced several steps, stopped and lunged forward their bayonets, letting out a roar. They moved forward, lunging and shouting, and the protesters drifted away. There was violence on campus and elsewhere as I mentioned earlier. It was comforting to see the 82nd with their MGs set up behind sandbags across from my little hotel the next morning. There were no rooms available so my bed was a newspaper---I think the Memphis Press-Scimitar---on the hotel floor. Nice town. I didn't have time to look for Mr. Faulkner.

King,
Check out the state laws of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and the local laws of Chicago, New York and San Francisco. It has happened.

Registration comes first. It's an awful decision; be compliant or be a felon.

Yeti, I don't have to check for confirmation. I believe what members tell me here. Thanks. We have crazy laws, too: you'll do more time for killing a moose out of season than a person any time of the year.

John Locke was the one of the most influential English philosophers. His writings on "natural rights" were a major influence on the Founding Fathers.

"Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs."



When you're not reading NWL'38 or GCA'68 check it out.

Apt observation Jack. I wish more were in the space between the belly rollers and the obsessively on guard.

Jay

Well, that, at least, would be the plan. We'll see how it goes as the population is further diluted with members who have no knowledge or sense of U.S. history, ethics, and morals. But we be proud to be the melting pot. Is there as point at which the good part of "melting pot" becomes less than good?

[quote=JM
John Locke was the one of the most influential English philosophers. His writings on "natural rights" were a major influence on the Founding Fathers.

"Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs."[/quote]

JM - This quote from Locke does reflect a source for the thinking of important individuals among the Founding Fathers. But it doesn't answer the question Jack M. and I both asked. Although this idea of natural rights is associated with an Age of Enlightenment, I think it has lots in common with the later Romantics - ecstasy excepted - and doesn't stand up to a clear-eyed look at human behavior and history.

Scratch a nativist and you always find a guy who has arrived but he can't remember where from.

jack

My point is that major legislation doesn't happen overnight, or even in a month or two as you seem to imagine was the case with the GCA '68.

No, I'm pointing out that the GCA '68 evolved out of a host of gun control bills that had been written, debated, revised, argued and rejected over a period of 7 years, growing out of the JFK and subsequent assassinations. Dodd was deeply involved in crafting gun control legislation throughout that period. Most of the language that wound up in the GCA had been reviewed repeatedly. GCA was the culmination of a seven year process, not a last minute inspiration.

The notion that, after 7 years, Dodd suddenly recalled his old copy of the Nazi law, sent it off for translation and then swept the GCA board clean with a "near verbatim copy" is naive beyond belief!

Pretty cute - you inserted [question about Dingle] when in fact the question you had previously insisted that I answer was about the Dodd letter - and I answered that question. If you want to play 'bait and switch,' there's no way to have a rational discussion with you.

I can't explain why Rep. Dingell compared the GCA'68 to NWL'38 because I can't get into his brain. Politicians say a lot of dumb things - and that was certainly one of them.

So if GCA '68 is a "near verbatim copy" of the NWL, it must also ban Jews from manufacturing firearms and ammunition. Maybe I missed that part? The fact is that Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and almost every other nation in the world requires a license for those who want to manufacture firearms and ammunition. Does that make them all "near verbatim" copies of Nazi law?

I have also scanned GCA '68 for the "near verbatim" Nazi requirements for national weapons acquisition permits for handguns [Waffenerwerbschein] and national carry permits [Waffenschein], exemptions for government and party members, and - oddly enough - the exemption of licensed hunters from the Waffenerwerbschein requirement, and the ban on hollow-point .22 rimfire ammo. I have also been unable to find, in GCA '68, any "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi law giving local police discretion on ownership of firearms, swords or knives. Maybe my copy is incomplete somehow?

The GCA '68 is primarily focused on firearm imports and manufacturing, transfers and mail-order and interstate sales and shipment. It imposes NO national permit requirements for individual firearm acquisition or for carrying firearms.

Calling the GCA '68 a "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 is absolute fantasy. But if you're naive enough to believe it, JM, and want to keep waving that scary swastika, reality won't convince you otherwise. I see no point in continuing this conversation with you.

What a great line! This has the ring of a something Twain might have said, drives me to use a !

Wow. I had no idea so many utilitarians here.

In response to the question put to me, you can read Locke. You can also some of the early philosophers. Thomas Paine in " The Rights of Man" describes "natural rights". But Paine is also a bit tenditious. For us, why not start a bit closer to home?

I suggest that you look at Jefferson in his reasonably famous work, in which he appeals to an understanding of "natural rights, which he refers to as " Inalienable Rights". I am of course referring to the Declaration of Independence. You have read it perhaps?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Or did ya'll just not have 8th grade Civics up there in Yankee Land?

On a broader front, though, I think a working definition of natural right is one which requires no positive action by another.

My right of free speech exists in a state of nature, and requires no positive action by anyone, and i need command no action by anyone else. My right to bear arms, same thing. It just "is". Men had the right and ability to acquire and bear arms absent any social interaction of any sort. And it flows directly from the "Right to Life" - as my "right to Life" is absolutely meaningless if I do not have an effective means to defend my life.

Right to trial by jury, on the other hand, is NOT a natural right, as it requires the co-option and cooperation of others in order for me to enjoy that right. That, by the way, doesnt mean it is not important, merely that it is not natural.

Regards

GKT

But our government can - and does - take away life (fairly often, in Texas) and liberty (our prisons are crowded) and the pursuit of happiness (narcotics possession).

Locke stated natural rights as 'life, liberty and property' - Jefferson changed that last to 'pursuit of happiness' to bring in folks who lacked property. But these were ideals, dreams, not realities of life. See Jeremy Bentham's 'Critique.'

There is not a country in the world today where the Constitution's enumerated 'unalienable rights' cannot be violated - including our own. Power inevitably trumps 'natural rights.'

John Locke is one of my all-time favorite philosophers, but, must likey there was never a time of no government as he imagined. Reason being is that the fundamental government has always been family. There never was a time when there never was a Father or Mother that did not had control over their children. Families grew into larger social units such as clans where there was a cheiftan, or "Big Daddy" in charge. So, in that sense, there never was a time when men just ran free with no control. One thing that GOD DID give to us as a natural right is FREE AGENCY. We all have the right to choose good, or evil. Our modern bill of rights is a extension of this "Natural Right".

Let me ask you this. Who does the Bill Of Rights protect, the magority, or the minority? The answer is the the Minority. In a representative republic, majority rules. It needs no protection because it always gets it's way. the minority always loses because it has no popular support. James Madison and SOME of the founders believed there were some rights that the majority should never be allowed to take away. Therefore they demanded a Bill Of Rights be ammended to the Constitution to protect the Individual from the wims and fancy of the Majority. The Bill Of Rights is there to gurantee that people can exercise their own will and beliefs.

Hope this helps. LOCKE AND LOAD:)

IM is right in saying that 'free agency' is a natural right. It is the only natural right. If a man were alone in the world, free agency gives him the right to take what he wants and do as he wishes.

As soon as a man is joined by another person, his free agency begins to bump up against the other's. Limits to free agency become necessary in any social relationship - family, neighborhood, clan, nation. That's why anarchy fails.

So, you see, it's really all Eve's fault.

Adam and Eve lived in a perfect garden. They didn't know good because there was no evil to contrast it against. It's a bad thing to be cut off from God. But through Jesus Christ we can once again come into God's presence. If Adam and Eve had not transgressed we would not be able to choose good, or evil. Death would not have entered into the world. There would be no Hunting because there would be no death, therefore there would be no shotguns. A VERY bad thing.

You don't think Neanderthal man would've gotten around to inventing a shotgun.

Did Locke and others have some transcending (a Romantic word again) or divine philosophical insight that revealed what is a natural right? Did they all have the same insight? Does everyone agree on the three noted above in Locke and the Declaration?

What was the genesis of the Bill of Rights if not a political exercise of human will? It's protections depend on political power, any and all can be legislated away by amendment.

The simple questions "What is a natural right?" and "Who defines what is a natural right?" can only be answered by speculative opinion. Rights exist in the context of human history and culture. Natural rights exist in the imagination of humans.

Philosophy is not any different than theroretical physics, except that physics can be proven with math. Einstein had just as wild imagination as John Locke and Rene Descartes. Unfortualey philosophy can't be proven with numbers. The Bill of Rights stems from a lot on English common law and also the graddaddy of all Bill of Rights, the Magna Charta. I donn't think that the Enlightenment Philosophers invented a lot of new things, but rather put the pieces together from existing ideas. Just as Issac Newton K.B.E. didn't invent light, but discovered the principles of light.

Natural Rights are an extension of Free Agency. You can't be free unless you have the ability to act. However, John Locke said that Natural Rights included the right to life, liberty and property. The Founders didn't believe in a right to property, (i.e. taxes) so they substitued "Happiness". As for life and liberty, well... tell a wilderbeast being eaten by a lion that he has the right to life.

The only rights that I can think of that the government defends are the right to pay taxes and the right to remain silent.

As fOr a neandertal with a ShOtgun. I don't trust extict species with firearms. AlsO the human DNA genome project has proved that everyone descended from a single alpha male and female. Up to you to fill in the blAnks.

Neanderthal man did, where do you think all those pumps and autoloaders came from! By their ungainly appearance a caveman had to have invented them!!!!

Once again, if this is the case, then why could Dodd not have “evolved” the bill further by including the provisions from NWL’38 in the bill? What documentation do you have to prove the bill was in its final form prior to this? Since Dodd had knowledge of this law, since he had it translated, why could he not have put very similar provisions in it prior to the letter from the Library of Congress? Tell me straight up that Dodd could not have revised the bill if what you are claiming is true?

If you have no documentation to back up your speculation than admit that this is nothing but your opinion, end of story.




Of course I instered it, that's what the brackest are used for. I made the insertion and clearly marked it with “[]” to make sure there was no misunderstanding of what was being referred to and for no other reason.
Here’s my original question : Rep. John Dingle (D-Michigan) made some objections in the House debate over this law that it resmebled too closely the NLW'38 (Nazi Law on Weapons 1938). He was attacked by Senator Tydings (D-MD) who I believe was from Maryland, and Dingle backed down. Why did this happen if they were not alike?

You can find it on page 23.

Here’s your evasion on the same page two posts down:
Probably because Rep. John Dingell, in a hearing before Dodd's committee, compared the proposed legislation to the 1938 Nazi law! If you were accused of copying something, wouldn't you want to check it out? Do you really imagine that on such a controversial topic, Dodd could read a document in mid-July, draw up a "near verbatim copy" and make it a law by October?

If you admitted you had no answer the first time we could have avoided this. Don't pretend to get all huffy and puffy, a sixth grader might be impressed with it but that's about all. By the way, Dingle is still in office. Contact him, and find out for yourself, he’s an interesting person. He and Ted Kennedy are the only remaining members from this episode.




I said it was “near” ( you know, close, similar, etc.), I never said it was EXACT. If GAC’68 only had this one similar provision, then any claim that the two laws were related would be a stretch. However, combined with the other similarities together in one law combined with the letter in the possession of the author who wrote the law is what the issue is about. If the other nations you mentioned passed the same laws under the same circumstances, then yes. Otherwise your comparison of other European nations is just a smoke screen and has nothing to do with it.(GOOD GRIEF, AND YOU KEEP WHINING ABOUT RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS AND THIS IS ALL YOU CAN CLAIM?! You also need to reads things a bit closer too.)




I will gladly address the questions regarding other areas of the two laws when we get to them, so hang onto them for now. I need to go one issue at a time because I have little time to post. You made a demand that I post where the laws were similar, and I posted one example, and I will post more AFTER you fulfill the similar demand I now make on you. Please post a section from each law where they are distinctly different to prove your claim that they are not alike. Include the Section Number, Section Title, and subsection number if applicable, from each law so I can go directly to it and read it. Tell me briefly what the section differences are. I don’t want or need a dissertation from you.

I await your posting with the information.

Greg, we are all utilitarians no matter which philosophical school we choose to swim with. Mother Love defies that categorization and is the exception in human commerce and organization. If you know the ballad of "The Wreck of Old 99" you may also know that it is a story about the price which someone must always pay for the greater good--in this case the loss of life on the fast mail trains of the 19th century. The mail must go through "on time"; the loss of life is an acceptable price unless it's the love of YOUR life who dies. The commuter must also go through as must the beer trucks and so the personal and social utility of getting to work or having a brewsky numbs our dread of highway carnage. We send our boys to war. They die defending life, liberty and the pursuit of abstractions. We accept their sacrifice as terrible but necessary. Utilitarian was the occupational definition of the social animal before it became the intellectual property of your least favorite philosophe.

jack

JM: Apparently you don't even know what "verbatim" means. I won't waste any more time on you. Rave on.

Sorry but I have no ancestors n Africa.

BLAAHAAHHAA! I KNEW IT(!), you can't answer my question and post any part of the Nazi Weapons Law from 1938 because you DON'T KNOW!!!!!! You've misrepresented yourself at the least or have been untruthful at worst. I gave you the benefit of the doubt early on, but it became VERY obvious when you made the post in response to the similarities to the licensing sections. I've also asked you more than once to post information from NLW'38 and you never did. If you knew it, you would have posted it in a hearbeat to prove your point!!!

YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN AND YOUR BARE BUTT EXPOSED!

Don't even pretend it, Jack. It has nothing to do with the definition of verbatim which means "exact" because I said "NEAR VERBATIM" which you've quoted from me in your own comments. This is just another one of your smoke screens in an attempt to hide the obvious: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE CLAIMED OTHERWISE!!!!

You have no trouble jumping on other people and making demands that they explain this and prove that. It's seems it's a different story when the tables are turned, you blame the other person, and bail out. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. What goes around comes around.

Normally, I would not do this with anyone who admitted upfront the limits of their knowledge of a particular issue, but you deserve it for wasting my time and putting on this scam. I will allow myself this one transgression and my aplogies to the other memebers of this board.

Goodbye.

nO ancestOrs there either.

For those who haven't been paying attention, "verbatim" means word-for-word, and "near" means almost.

Here in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. It is not up to the accused to prove innocence. The person who calls himself "JM" has charged that GCA '68 is a "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1936. He has provided no evidence of that. And he has charged a U.S. senator with writing that "near verbatim copy" but has cited only innuendo against him.

I have cited numerous examples of major points in the Nazi Weapons Law which do not appear in any way, shape or form in GCA '68 (national weapon acquisition permit, national carry permit, restrictions on Jews, Gypsies and vagabonds, police discretion on ownership of guns, swords and knives, ban on hollowpoint .22 rimfires, etc.)

JM has responded by noting a broadly similar requirement for government licensing of firearm and munitions makers - something that is found in almost all national firearm laws! By that logic, almost every civilized nation on earth has a "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi Weapons Law! JM neglects to mention that in his example of a "near verbatim copy," the Nazi law bans Jews from making firearms or munitions.

I will not engage in name-calling from a distance, or characterizing those with whom I may disagree. For anyone who is curious about JM's character, I refer you to his last post.

Must we get so personal. I find it interesting that this forum has spirited debate which is often quite intellectual. Other gun forums on the net abound with bile and personal attacks. I would suggest not rising to the bait.
I do have one question for HomelessjOe. How can you be so sure you have no ancestors in Africa? Jake

Jack, I thought you weren't going to waste anymore time on this?

I'll not get into a pi$$ing match.

To anyone who cares, don't take my word for it or Jack's. Go back to page 20 where it all began and read on, 'nuf said...

Just about everything I know about NWL '38 and GCA '68 I learned from following this debate.

Considering only undisputed factual statements about the actual content of the two acts, it's clear to me that the latter is nothing like a near word-for-word copy of the former. Citing general similarity in selected provisions is not evidence of a even a single verbatim sentence. SHOUTING and vulgarity doesn't advance an argument, and is certainly no substitute for documentation to support a claim that if true could be proven by objective evidence.

Even if Dodd did consult the German law of 38 as preparation for writing his own legislation rather than as a reaction to Dingle's accusation, how exactly would the onus of Nazi crimes against humanity adhere to him? By the found-looking-at- something-belonging-to-a-duck principle?

jack

Because I'm English and not spawned in the Sands of North Africa.

Are we talking one generation here? Who knows who was spawned where a million years ago? Jake

That's my point...who knows ? Not some Genetic Scientist. I don't know where he got his scientific evidence that man all came from one alfa male and one alfa female the PTL club ?

I'll change my statement my people were spawned in Northern Europe a million years ago...not somewhere close to the Nile

Here's something I wrote and posted to http://www.guntalk.com right after the Zumbo thing broke.

----------


Tipping Point -- Suicide on the Web

Something fascinating just happened. I suspect it will be studied by those who do such things, but at this point, it is clear that last weekend we saw a sea change in the way gun owners react to threats.

If you heard Gun Talk last Sunday, Feb. 18, you heard Jim Zumbo, longtime hunting writer for Outdoor Life, addressing a blog (online comment piece) he wrote. If you didn't hear it, you can download the archive file here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com. It's the February 18 show, "part C."

Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that's his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s "terrorist rifles." The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry.

You see, the AR-15 is one of the most popular firearm platforms going. I own three of them and love to shoot them. I don't consider myself a terrorist, and neither do the millions of others who own them and shoot them for recreation, or who own them for personal defense. On "Personal Defense TV" we have been showing that the thinking among security trainers has moved away from the shotgun as the ideal home defense gun, and in many quarters, it now favors the AR-15 or some other carbine (short rifle).

Zumbo had made a mistake from which there was no recovery. He wrote his blog while on a hunting trip. Just before going on the air, I checked the internet forums (fora?) and found a firestorm. People were livid, and with good reason. Some of the comments were clearly over the top, but most of them conveyed the rage that comes from a feeling of being betrayed by someone you thought of as one of your own.

We were only 30 minutes away from going on the air for a live, three-hour broadcast, so I called Zumbo's home. He was still enroute home from his hunting trip and knew nothing about the controversy he had created. I left word that if he wanted to come on the show to make a statement, he could call in.

During the last hour of the show, he decided to go onto Gun Talk, live. He had just posted an apology on the Outdoor Life web site. His explanation was that he just didn't know anything about these rifles, and had no idea that people actually hunted with them. I felt for Jim, but I also knew that in calling for the banning (even if only for hunting) of any gun was incredible, but calling them rifles used by terrorists was, quite simply, unconscionable.

Having just read some of the comments on a few of the online groups where people were posting Zumbo's home address and personal information, calling for . . . well, it was hard to know what they were calling for . . . I made a comment about our willingness to eat our own. Some of that was based on hearing gunnies say that they won't buy Ruger firearms because of something Bill Ruger said two decades ago. Hey, the man is dead and buried.

Still, in this case, I was wrong. That's not what was going on here, as I discovered when I got off the air. To listeners who took offense, I do apologize. The outrage by gun owners is completely understandable. To put it in context, Zumbo's comments came only days after we saw the introduction of a bill in Congress to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban (the so-called "assault weapons" ban). The final nail in the coffin was when-- Sunday afternoon -- the Brady Campaign (the leading group working to restrict gun rights) posted Zumbo's comments to several places on the net, saying, in effect, "See, even the top hunting writer says these rifles have no legitimate use."

At that point, it was all over for Jim Zumbo.

Thousands upon thousands of emails were directed to Remington and all the sponsors of Zumbo's television show on The Outdoor Channel. The emails were all pretty much the same -- dump Zumbo or I'll never buy any of your products. Remington first posted a message saying it was severing all ties with Zumbo. On Monday, the company said it was ending its sponsorship of him. Other companies followed, and it continues. Outdoor Life removed Zumbo's blog, and his apology. Each had generated thousands of comments -- almost all of them hugely negative.

We can take away from this experience several observations.

The first is that this attitude of "just let them take those ugly, black guns" is common among hunters and competitive shooters. Anyone with that attitude is a fool. Sit down with a hunter from England or Australia, hear him tell the story of what happened there, and watch the tears well up in his eyes when he says they never thought the government would take away their hunting guns. To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.

A ban on black guns, or "Saturday Night Specials," or 50-caliber rifles, is a ban on all our guns. There is no such thing as a bad gun or a good gun. We can't throw babies off the back of the sled, thinking it will keep the wolves away from us.

The next thing we learn from this is that the world has just changed. This entire episode took place inside of 36 hours, on a weekend -- a three-day weekend for President's Day. It happened...and this is important...entirely on the internet. The original posting was on the net, the reaction was on the net, the emails demanding that companies break off with Zumbo were on the net, and the reactions from the companies were all on their web sites. This was completely an internet event. It was a nuclear explosion, with tens of thousands of messages posted, spanning all the firearms-related web sites.

How often over the last 30 years, as I fought for gun rights, traveled to Washington, DC, wrote about gun rights, spoke at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, and for the last 14 years, broadcasted about gun rights on the radio, have I lamented the inability to get gun owners motivated to protect their own rights? This powerful example shows that it can be done.

Now, the real question is whether we can generate that kind of response when we need to defeat a gun ban. Can we melt down mail servers of elected representatives the way gun owners hammered the servers at various companies? I don't know.

What I do know is that we are facing more calls for gun bans and restrictions on our gun rights over the next few years than we have seen in the last 40 years. Someone on the side of gun rights needs to develop a way to replicate this . . . this "Zumbo Effect" . . . to beat back the assault which has already started.

We must find a way to "Zumbo" our attackers in Congress, in the state houses, and wherever they assault our rights.

Mr. Gresham, thank you for responding. I believe your post goes a long way to put the whole "Zumbo thing" in perspective.

Regards,

Ed

Regarding firearms laws in the U.K., this is well worth reading:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0442.htm

HomelessJOe had a different view and I have to respect that. That is what rights are all about.

Keep your money - let God sort out his own.

Ed and Tom, I'm not sure how this has changed the world. A man was fired for saying what he thought, rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, depending on our views. Happens every day. The outrage is not measurable compared to that from other events on a national and international scale the past 50 years or so. I look real hard to find much improvement today for all that outpouring of opinion. Least of all where it concerns our shooting, and I'm an optimist.

Here's what I said...I don't need someone like Improved Modified changing my quote.

HomelessjOe:
I have to apologize, but you must understand; I was out hunting coyotes and the wind was blowing 60mph and I was tired. It was snowing, raining, and I go peppered by stray pellets. All of this conspired to change my core beliefs and say and write things that I may, or may not believe at the moment. I must apologize for things that may, or may not have been written and quotes that may, or may not have been taken out of context.

Really I'm sorry if I offended you. I stand by orignal post that I respect your different opinion and I think you add a lot to this board.

Yup, King hit it again, like I tried to back on page 20. Guy quit making his bosses money so they let him go. End of story. All this other stuff has little or nothing to do with Zumbo. Hitler, negroes, nativists, Billy Carter, gun laws, but not Zumbo.

Eightbore, you and King are right. Simple economics at work here. Had Zumbo been employeed at Wal-Mart not a peep would have been uttered. Problem is that gun rights are constantly in danger and Zumbo had just given the Anti-gunnners a lot of ammo. Now we have to cope with the turd he left behind in the toilet and I think the board is trying to sort it all out and figure out what scrub brush to use.

Yes, the Zumbo story is simple. His job was to write pieces that attracted and retained readers. Keeping him on would have cost an awful lot of cancelled subscriptions and lost advertising. He pretty much fired himself.

One positive note of this thread is that I think it has deepened our understanding of the 2nd Ammendment and codified our belief in it. Also it has separated the true believers in the right to keep and bear arms from the situational believers.

As a fellow outdoor writer of Zumbo's (although I don't know him), I posted this thought elsewhere, and will post it here as well:

What happened to Zumbo is an excellent example of why outdoor magazines have editors. What Zumbo said in his blog, I'd be willing to bet any amount of money, never would've made it into the pages of Outdoor Life. An editor would've emailed or called Zumbo and said something like: "Jim, you maybe want to rethink that stuff about AR's?"

His blog, as I understand it, was sponsored by (but neither moderated nor edited by) Outdoor Life. So he had a right to say what he said; readers had the same right to react as they did; and Outdoor Life had the right to shut down his blog and show him the door. It's one of those cases that never would've happened, back before the Net, because an editor never would've allowed it to happen.

Writers often grumble about what editors do to their copy. In this case, I have a feeling Zumbo wishes he'd had an editor look at what he wrote before it went up on the Net.

Jim Zumbo and the Dixie Chicks will make a great quartet! There are some people who just never get it.

Heck, Larry, I had a government job and I wish I'd had an editor about eight hundred times before I sent memos upstairs. The good news is that I quit when I was 53 and couldn't be happier. However, I think your observation about the Zumbo situation is the best I've read, including my own.

'Blog' is misspelled and mispronounced. Obviously, the word should be spelled and pronounced 'blab.'

I worked with Jim Zumbo on a mule deer hunting film. He is a good guy who has done a lot for gun owners and hunters, and for a lot of years. He really screwed up this one time, and has paid a terrible price. But I don't celebrate his departure and I think Outdoor Life will be the poorer for it.

Well, I slept on the words of Larry, jack and Bill and awakened on a sunny morning, looking out at thousands of whistlers, bluebills and mergansers in a long lead in the harbour ice 500m away, and came up with this:

All comment here taught me a lot about how the Constitution is perceived but more about the importance of this board to me as a place where I get information unvarnished without the heavy hand of. commercialism.