doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

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.