Opinion
Fayetteville, AR -(AmmoLand.com)- The siren call for gun control has once again lured The Washington Post onto the rocks.
In an opinion piece published on-line on the 3rd of September, the Editorial Board calls on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to end his “inertia on gun safety” and do something about what they believe to be daily mass shootings.
Admitting that “no single law would end gun violence,” they nevertheless insist on a “ban on the sale of military-grade assault weapons. Unneeded by civilians, they are a blight on the nation, their ready availability a national disgrace. Eliminating them would slow the growth of this list [of mass shootings]. It would save lives.”
Enough of us have corrected the bogus label of “assault weapon” to make yet another explanation of why it’s a disingenuous term tedious. I am seeing more and more advocates of gun control tell me that I do not need an AR-15, the firearms that these days are the most common example offered for what a “military-grade” gun is supposed to be. When I ask them what their qualifications are for making that assertion, I’m told that it’s common sense—the fallacies of bandwagon appeal and begging the question—and then asked why I’m such a lousy shot. These are dodges to avoid admitting that the people making the argument are not experts in weapons, tactics, or history. There are many answers as to why I or others need—require, want, employ, possess—semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, but the fact that some politicians and voters want to take them away is the bottom line when the person asking isn’t willing to hear any other responses.
Their claim that civilians don’t need “military-grade assault weapons” deserves attention, especially as it illustrates how little qualified they are to tell me what any of us need. “Civilian” originally meant a resident of a city—from the Latin word, civis —as opposed to a member of the nobility (military order) or clergy, and its contemporary meaning continues that contrast with soldiers. “Police” comes from the Greek word, polis, which also means city. They function as members of the “civil administration,” not as an occupying military force. As such, according to the editors of The Washington Post should insist that cops have their icky guns taken away. But one point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee that ordinary Americans have some measure of parity with armed agents of the government, and that’s, even more, the case as the police are increasingly turned into paramilitary forces.
And then there is the claim about daily mass shootings. The Editorial Board needs reminding that a mass shooting is a single incident in which four or more are killed, not including the terrorist. A Reddit user by the handle of Billy Speed “decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ [sic] definition of a mass shooting.” This was a deliberate attempt to inflate numbers to create the impression that we have many more terrorist attacks when, in fact many incidents that get swept up into the count are ordinary criminal violence.
This is not meant to dismiss the latter or to deny the damage done by any murder or assault. But basing a policy (another word derived from polis) proposal on poor arguments and dishonest presentations will not lead to good ends. We who value gun rights, however, cannot be satisfied to accept a win on the technical points while demands to “do something” grows louder.
One “do something” proposal is a requirement that any transfer of a firearm—and of late, gun control advocates are being honest that they don’t want guns to be loaned to friends—must be done with a background check. And there is an easy solution here, one that offers the promise of achieving what gun control advocates claim to desire. Open the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Allow gun buyers to log in and receive a time-stamped go/no go ticket that they can present to sellers, whether licensed dealers or Bubba the Dremel Man. With computer databases and smartphones, this can be both instant and convenient. Of course, it doesn’t tie the buyer’s name to a particular gun, avoiding concerns about a de facto registry, but gun control advocates insist that they want to compromise
Another solution is one that I point out over and over: Treat domestic violence seriously—at least as serious as possession of marijuana in the laws of many states and the federal government, for example. Mass shooters often have a history of violence against romantic partners and other family members. Investigating and prosecuting these crimes offer the best chance to forestall future attacks. And by the way, for the benefit of gun control advocates who don’t realize this, there is no girlfriend loophole. The Lautenberg Amendment makes anyone a prohibited person who is convicted of violence against someone with whom he (typically it is a man) cohabits in a family relationship. (https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/lautenberg-amendment-federal-gun-ban-domestic-violence/) Assault or similar acts against people with whom the attacker does not live is still a crime, despite what gun control advocates seem to believe.
The problem here is that many of us on the side of gun rights do keep offering things that we can do, but the “do something” crowd shows no interest in anything but curtailing gun rights.
Over and over I’ll be told that what I suggest—the above along with better access to education and healthcare, reductions in income inequality, and ending the war on drugs—are good, but we also need gun control. I then get accused of being a fake liberal, a fake gun owner, or the like, depending on who’s in the conversation. The fact is that yes, I and others have something that can be done to reduce overall violence and specifically mass shootings. We in the gun community have to speak out with at least as much volume as the advocates of gun control, calling for solutions as well as insisting on respect for rights. And we must not be silent when we’re presented the accusation that opposition to gun control is the same thing as support for murder.
About Greg Camp
Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.
You can’t negotiate with the enemies of liberty any more than you can with terrorists. We will not surrender our rights by either compromise or appeasement. If they think they can take away our means of defense and resistance, well they are welcome to try it, but it will NOT end well for them!!
Correct. In the end they offer you two choices. Choice one: you cut your own throat. Choice two: we cut your throat. The objective is power. The outcome is irrelevant because progressives and leftists of all brands never critically analyze outcomes. They just shoot those who do.
nrringlee; You are right on those 2 choices, I don’t accept either one, CARRY ON!!!!!
Since neither choice is acceptable, it will be up to American patriots to ‘cut THEIR throat’. When the choice is death or slavery, ATTACK!!
“It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare. ” -Protocol #1, paragraph 3
Where is that from?
https://archive.org/stream/TheProtocolsOfTheLearnedEldersOfZion/ProtocolsOfTheEldersOfZion_djvu.txt
Very difficult to find, and the best version that I can find online now. Twenty years ago there were thousands of hits, but now… mostly scrubbed and put in the memory hole. But there are still many copies around on paper. It was translated by Englishman Victor Marsden, after he retired, circa 1910, and so known as the Marsden Edition. That is the version I have in print. But quotes are much better when one can point to an online source.
Para 18 is also interesting: “18. In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and
respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare.”
Does that sound familiar to anyone aware of the leftists current trend towards the mindlessness of continually shooting itself in the foot, AKA, careless of its own welfare, and even of its own life?
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads: “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.” The US Constitution does not give us any rights, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. Rather, it affirms rights that already existed, espoused in the “Bill of Rights”, in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which existed outside of any… Read more »
@CL, the Dick act did not and can not eviscerate the Second Amendment. A statute can not eviscerate the Constitution. See Marbury.
The Dick act was a funding and use of federal training areas act to support the National Guard, and did not effect the unorganized militia.
Every Congress, legislature, county board, and city council that creates gun control has and is ignoring the preemptive character of the Second Amendment. Every court, judge, and bureaucrat that supports gun control has and is ignoring the preemptive muscle of the Second Amendment.
My reading of the Dick Act created the National Guard which in turn eviscerated the Militia. What other reason can you find historically that the Militias all disappeared on the time line other then the Dick Act? Where is the ORGANIZED militia that would have the power to arrest and try these traitors you list?
@CL, The Militia Act did not touch the unorganized militia in any way. A statute can not eviscerate a provision of the Constiatution.
The reason that militias have disappeared is because training for war is hot sweaty work and militias were not paid.
You are quite free to organize and bankroll a militia, if you so choose.
The Washington Post is a “national disgrace”. And the rest of the liberal media too.
WA P.O.S.
“The problem here is that many of us on the side of gun rights do keep offering things that we can do, but the “do something” crowd shows no interest in anything but curtailing gun rights.”
Kind of like what you want, with all your buckling into their demands, agreeing to put the chains on ourselves in the name of compromise, but what do we expect with leftists like you greg who think somehow your support of firearm ownership some how invalidates the result of the bagage of your failure of a worldview.
What we can DO on the state level is work to get the MILITIA back into force and effect. That way many citizens will be well trained, and well armed and can be in many places at many times well armed. Thus if the militias are reestablished, with BTW ARREST powers we the people can arrest and detain and or use deadly force against ANYONE who tries to commit any kind of heinous crime. The militia will and can only be used for HEINOUS crime. And HEINOUS crimes ALWAYS have a victim.
WTF? Why is there ANY negative response to this outside of those who like to see the communist takeover completed?
@CL, Militia is easily infiltrated, misused, and military is ill suited for law enforcement. We already have a county sheriff system. You would create a lot of work for us, and we already have work to do.
Why don’t you start your own county militia, and let us know how that goes?
@CL, you could join the Nat. Guard, and sign up for the mike papa MOS.
As is written over the door at the entrance to the Marine Corps Sniper School, “Compromise is Failure”.
The only “blight on this nation” comes from the Progressive New Left who reject our founding principles, our founding in Reformation understandings of human nature and common law as the source of decency for a very uncommon people. Our nation is the last great hope of humanity. Those who seek to destroy it do so simply in a quest for power and a false dream of utopian idealism. This poison comes from leftists who have infiltrated our public education system. Spend time with your kids, your grand kids, your neighbors kids, etc and talk with them about the meaning of… Read more »
@ring, Quite correct. Lets put our efforts into recapturing the local school boards, rather than restarting the unfunded militia.
Lists, you want a sex offender type list for prohibited people who isn’t suppose to have or possess any guns? Hmm, look up what Ohio Mike Dewine want to to do with the NICS. HE wants to add people who are RED FLAGGED if he gets the Red Flagged laws passed there to the NICS along with people who have outstanding warrants. You do realize that’s those are temporary and are for people who has never been convicted of a crime and it’s nearly impossible to get crap removed from the NICS that wasn’t true, out dated or the people… Read more »
My apologies up front for my lack of trust. I am one of the tens of thousands who are “delayed” every time I fill out a 4473. Of all the NICS checks ran on me, exactly one of them has ever come back as an official approval. All of the others I have completed the transfer after the time expired but without an official blessing. The system you propose will ensure I can never own another firearm. There is only one quality and efficient government system for gun control…. never mind I was mistaken. If you are a free citizen… Read more »
“at least as serious as possession of marijuana in the laws of many states and the federal government”
What is advocated here is that an unconstitutional ban on a substance (marijuana) by the federal government (as far as I can tell the states do have that legal right) be used as a criteria for unconstitutional infringements on a constitutional right??? Really? This is a glaring example of where we are today. If any doubt this analysis then ask yourself one simple question: Why was prohibition accomplished with a constitutional amendment?
What I wrote there was not an endorsement of current marijuana laws. It was to point out the sad reality that we punish marijuana possession a lot more than things that are actual harms.
You are an idiot.
Marijuana was banned because black Americans were growing it in their back yards instead of buying booze. Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to ban anything. COWARDLY Americans allowed the federal government to rape the ‘interstate commerce’ clause and pervert it to mean anything and give unlimited power to government. The politicians ALWAYS steal power and cowardly Americans sit, quietly, as they are raped of their Rights and money.
Cowardice has its consequences.
Greg Camp frets about being called a “fake liberal ,a fake gun owner”. He says ” We in the gun community have to speak out ” I wonder how many here want a real liberal considered part of the gun community or as a spokesman for the gun community? I understand this question may bring charges of being divisive. I believe a smaller unified group is more powerful than a larger group riddled with traitors and double agents. Just because a person is well educated, well read, well spoken, that does not preclude the possibility that they can also be… Read more »
@Consider, Greg Camp should go back to teaching English. It takes hard men to do the “something” that needs to be done.
In this vein, I have a very serious question for this “English teacher”. Mr Camp, please stop hiding behind words like: “but we also need gun control.”. Instead please tell us all exactly WHAT FORM of “gun control” that you think we “need”? I’ll bet large that he will either have no answer at all, or the same old, tired, debunked, answer as the die hard leftists at CNN.
Please prove that I’m incorrect Mr. Camp. Please have an original thought that we can use for something other than taking up column inches…
@Knute Knute, Don’t you just love it when someone tells you what you need? Especially when it is a reduction in your civil rights.
And MOST esp. when that one has made clear that he dislikes you and could care less about you. Good luck getting what you NEED from a one such as that. One who couldn’t care less about what you “need”.
Meanwhile, I’m needing an answer to my question from Mr. Camp. I’ve a hunch that I’d best not hold my breath while waiting.
Two days and exactly zero response from Mr Camp on my offer of a good faith “dialog”. How very like an anti. To make big claims about what they want… AND what they THINK you “need”, only to find that whatever they claim is just a big steaming pile of what comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.
Luckily, I don’t hold my breath waiting for the antis to be reasonable.
The cartoon shows five criminals pointing at one law abiding gun owner. How true that is.
If I am reading the article correctly Mr. Camp is proposing the democrat’s enhanced back ground checks. People on this site have told him what they think after reading some of his previous articles. If this is what he is promoting then I have to say that it is appropriate for someone that was in education. I will take a different perspective when I read any of his articles.
I asked Mr. Camp what gun control he thinks we need below in the comments, days and days ago. So far, no answer. Blanket statements, without definitions, about what someone else thinks YOU need… Followed by refusal to have the dialog that they claim to want…
Do those attitudes remind anyone here of a certain other group that we gun owners are very familiar with, and that we (or at least I) have been opposing since 1968?
Lautenberg Amendment, one of the newer and more efficient methods to degrade citizens into the prohibited class. Better yet, even ex post facto. More efficient than the blanket felon prohibitions. Any citizen can now be degraded by mere accusation of possible future acts of violence. These laws allow rights to be denied from physically free citizens, establishing a de facto underclass of sub-citizens. People who believe that this would never happen to or effect them by being law abiding, are wrong. These laws have not only bitten us in the back, we are being eaten alive. Our officials are totally… Read more »
@Greg Camp, You are retired and you write stories for a living, you can email them in. , so you don’t need a car. You get a pension, 401(k), and money from writing those stories. You don’t need a stream of income that big, so everything over 20K is to be handed over to the government so they can redistribute it to those that need it.
See how easy that is? And I did not have to spend time or effort to find out a single fact about you!
Until the biased media at a national level stops pushing the liberal agenda for these bans it is a battle lost. A small group cannot fight these Giant money making machines. The sheep get information from what is considered comedy entertainment and follow these clowns as respected journalists.
@MM1(SS), we are fighting them right here, right now by sharing ideas, techniques, and truthful arguments.
It’s very difficult to come to an agreement with people who happily tell any lie to get what they want. That being said, I agree. Engage the public with ideas that help prevent these mass shootings. Don’t let the debate focus on ideas that will do nothing except deprive us of our rights.
@MM1(SS), are you talking about the jihadists or the democrats?
We need to work on the county level in every state to re-establish the militia system that our founding fathers left us with. Not a “private” militia per se, but one that is ran by those in the county government. If we were following those first 13 words being NECESSARY, Militia members would be given full arrest powers for HEINOUS crimes, carry weapons EVERYWHERE which in turn would deter anyone bent on shooting up anything. Our Founding Fathers weren’t idiots. Their system would work just fine today as it did back then. Repeal the DICK ACT which was a blatant… Read more »
@CL, The Militia Act of 1903, known as the Dick Act, has been repealed and replaced many times. None of the Militia Acts effected the Second Amendment.
Put your passion to something worthy of it. Something that is going on now.
[…] Greg Camp Ammoland.com September 7, […]
Do you know what a HANSOB is?
@AH, Ok, what is a HANSOB?
Heavily Armed Non-compliant Sons Of Bitches
It’s a term used by Carl Bussjaeger to define a group of people that will be created if a lot of this gun grabbing bullshit gets passed by congress.
Wow. Sounds like the motto of the 5th Marines.
Semper Fi
@ring, I dunno. The Marines are a really disciplined outfit.
Lol no.