Outstanding article-Why Did it Have to be.............Guns?

[gunman42782]

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith

http://www.lneilsmith.org/

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

[Pathfinder]

This is the clearest, most rational, most direct, exposition of our rights and why they are so important that I have read in a long, long time.

Excellent post!

[JohnJacobH]

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith


Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

Yes, excellent blast from the past and should always be posted as a bookend with Vin Suprynowicz  as a companion piece:

*************************************
Swiss Operations Order Number 2

On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War II by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million.

General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operations Order No. 2: " 'At the border and between the border and army position, the border troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge, even if they find themselves completely alone.' "

This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other European countries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or surrendered after a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmark's king surrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and instructed his forces not to resist. Norway resisted, although 'unlike Switzerland' it had no armed populace and was ill- prepared for combat. "

In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland issued its 'directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under arms in event of attack.'

Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise attack and against the fifth column as follows: "

'All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of all powers of his own initiative.' "

This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at home. "

'Under no condition,' the order continued, 'would any surrender be forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker. this information must be regarded as the lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death.' ... "

France collapsed in June, 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Paris was taken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed the death penalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupied countries.

"In contrast, Cuisan recalled the high duty of the soldier to resist: " 'Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ... The machine gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapons to use, he does not yield. ..."


Even old men and children were issued armbands, identifying them as Ortswehren (local defense) so they could not be shot as partisans under international law, when the time came for them to shoot any invader they saw.

Hitler never invaded Switzerland.

Would you have?

Source:

Vin Suprynowicz

[Bidah]

Excellent post(s).  I do not remember where it started, but the saying "without the second, you can't have a first" has to me seemed pretty self evident.

Yes, I have also been accused as a single issue person/voter because I realized what that article was demonstrating to be very true.

-Bidah

[Teresa Heilevang]

Bravo and a standing round of applause for the author J Neil Smith..
That was outstanding! Level headed, common sense, to the point statements that all Americans should think about.
I will post this on our other websites and also through e-mail, pass this on to as many as I can.

~M'Ette

[Sponsor]

[Crescendo]

. . .That was outstanding! Level headed, common sense, to the point statements that all Americans should think about.
I will post this on our other websites and also through e-mail, pass this on to as many as I can.
~M'Ette

Excellent -

L. Neil Smith
Gunman42782
Marshallette

[Michael Bane]

Beautifully done!

It should be distributed to every voter in the gun culture!

Michael B

[Boulderlaw]

Great piece.

The same could be said for economic regulations (like the minimum wage) or morals legislation (like drug prohibition), which are policies predicated on the notion that you and I are too stupid to make our own choices.

I think it works the other way, too. That is, if a politician is for the minimum wage, they are probably also against gun ownership (e.g., McRomney). This converse analysis is useful for judging the truth of a supposed change of heart on guns (again, e.g., McRomney).

Also, if Thompson is genuine in his belief in the gun culture (which I think he is) this theory tends to show that he will be generally pro-liberty on other issues (e.g., repealing McCain-Feingold).

[robs_g23]

Nice article.  The elected leaders, who trust their fellow citizens with guns and the other Constitutional freedoms, can generally be trusted to do the right thing in government.

[Dtech]

Those were two excellent articles!  It's amazing what can be communicated simply by reminding everyone to use their common sense!