Who's Being Unreasonable?
"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
Last comment by sebekm 7 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

That's the title of an "opposing view" to a USATODAY editorial on gun control I came across yesterday. It is brief, concise and - IMHO - it is the best articulation against Second Amendment restrictions I have ever read. Here it is in its entirety:

"Who's being unreasonable? Opposing view

Jeff Knox and Chris Knox 7:47 p.m. EDT March 19, 2014

Our friends at USA TODAY think we gun rights advocates are unreasonable not to concede to what they call "reasonable compromises" regarding gun rights. We call it "experience."

Gun owners tried "reasonable" for 50 years. The result was layers of bureaucratic restrictions that turned paperwork errors into felonies while leaving violent criminals untouched. Experience teaches us that it is reasonable to refuse to negotiate restrictions on rights with people whose clear objective is to eliminate those rights.

Our late father, Neal Knox, warned gun owners more than 30 years ago that compromising principles in the name of being "reasonable" just means losing slowly. Our own history and the history of other pro-rights movements have borne his warning out.

Should gay people be "reasonable" and give up the marriage idea?

Should African Americans "compromise" on "separate but equal" accommodations?

Are women unreasonable when they expect to get paid the same as a man?

We don't think it is reasonable to be subject to a felony charge if we give, sell or even lend a gun to a friend without filing government paperwork. We reasonably distrust government mandates for guns with "safety technology" that police consider unsafe.

We think it is also reasonable to oppose any presidential nominee who has worked against an enumerated constitutional right. We think it's very reasonable to look at gun rights in places such as columnist Dick Metcalf's home state of Illinois, and refuse to accept more infringement on a right the Constitution says "shall not be infringed."

We reasonably point out that paperwork schemes have never met their stated goal of reducing crime while diverting scarce resources away from real law enforcement.

History has taught gun owners that the reasonable thing to do is to decide for ourselves what is reasonable and not leave the definition to those working to disarm us. It is especially reasonable for gun owners to elect politicians who share that reasonable view."

See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/19/whos-being-unreasonable/6629917/


Latest Activity: Mar 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by sebekm
Send sebekm a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (415) times.

JimmyMack commented on Friday, Mar 21, 2014 at 16:40 PM

Yes sebe, all that stuff works as long as it applies to musket loaded rifles with bayonets attached and maybe say a revolver or two capable of getting off 5-6 shots. But the rest of this NRA bull $hit is just that Bull $hit. It is not even closely relevant in making sure anyone including you, me or Adam Lanza has the RIGHT to walk in to a gun shop and getting an assault rifle or two with several hundred rounds. Maybe even pick us up a Tech-9 Automatic repeater or two like the kind Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used at Columbine.

Times have changed since 1776 Sebe when it comes to guns. It's ridiculous to support a policy that allows weapons of this type into peoples hands no matter how you spin it.

The NRA is essentially a terrorist organization in the business of mass producing weapons capable of killing 26 babies and adults in 10-12 minutes, 14 or more people in a movie theatre in Colorado in under 20 minutes, and 31 college students at Virginia Tech in 25-35 minutes with rapid load clips.

JimmyMack commented on Friday, Mar 21, 2014 at 16:45 PM

Jeff and Chris Knox are advocates of being allowed to create as much death and havoc as conceivably possible.

Why hell fire, don't we all NEED an AK-47???

JimmyMack commented on Friday, Mar 21, 2014 at 19:41 PM

If the NRA keeps putting out these massive people killers than I will now astound you and BUY into their ka-ka. Of course I will put in for some land mines, grenades, night glasses, dynamite, tear gas, mustard gas, and of course, a flame thrower and a bazooka, along with some barbed wire. We all be crazy right?

yall come to see me now, heah? With or without body armor.

JimmyMack commented on Friday, Mar 21, 2014 at 20:26 PM

Oh yeah, ho many clips did that psycho uniformed Major Muslim Psychiatrist get off against your band of brothers after he yelled his ALIU AKBAR?

What was the body count?

If the Army cannot weed out these lunies what is the solution to the general populace?

Oh yeah, I know.....MORE GUNS!!!!!

sebekm commented on Saturday, Mar 22, 2014 at 16:29 PM

Jimmy: You may be right. But I wasn't endorsing this view - I just said it was the best articulation of the argument I've ever read. After all:

*It IS totally true that it is complete folly to negotiate with people about restricting your rights who have as their objective the elimination of those rights. This is the same argument Obama uses for not negotiating with Republicans on ObamaCare.

*It IS totally true that to compromise principles in the name of being "reasonable" just means losing slowly. This has been demonstrated time and time again throughout our society in the areas of homosexual "rights," emasculation of our military (and society in general), and the erosion of the importance of traditional family values and religion.

*It IS totally true that paperwork schemes have never met their stated goal of reducing crime, while they actually do divert scarce resources from real law enforcement. Further, while there is anecdotal evidence like the example you cite about tragedies at Fort Hood and elsewhere, you (IMHO) correctly identify the perp as a "psycho." In those cases, you can reasonable expect "psychos" to obtain guns, pressure cookers, or whatever else they can devise to implement their mayhem. It doesn't necessarily follow that tighter gun restrictions equals less violent crimes. In fact, there are studies that suggest the opposite - especially in the United States. Go here and see especially pages 670-673:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/o...

In particular, see the conclusion on page 673 which says:

"...if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime."

So here we have a HARVARD STUDY which agrees with you: MORE GUNS MAY BE THE ANSWER.

JimmyMack commented on Saturday, Mar 22, 2014 at 18:46 PM

No Sebe: it is NOT the BEST articulation of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms because it totally disregards the conception of what constitutes ARMS!!!! Muskets, gattlin guns, Thompson Sub machine guns, rapid clip loading automatic pistols, AR Assault rifles, Tech 9 repeating pistols,...

Clever but inaccurate misinformation, I will give you that...but it is still NRA terrorist Bull $hit.

I suggest you buy stock in it, along with Phil Robertson, Tot, Honey Boo boos daddy, and THe New Black Panthers.

The more arms we add to the equation, the higher the body count.

No first hand information re: body bags, but I wager you do have familiarity to them.

Good Night.

sebekm commented on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2014 at 15:24 PM

Good morning.

You again miss my point: I am not (necessarily) agreeing with their stand - I'm just saying it's the best argument I've heard from them. This is NOT "misinformation":

*It IS totally true that it is complete folly to negotiate with people about restricting your rights who have as their objective the elimination of those rights. This is the same argument Obama uses for not negotiating with Republicans on ObamaCare.

*It IS totally true that to compromise principles in the name of being "reasonable" just means losing slowly. This has been demonstrated time and time again throughout our society in the areas of homosexual "rights," emasculation of our military (and society in general), and the erosion of the importance of traditional family values and religion.

*It IS totally true that paperwork schemes have never met their stated goal of reducing crime, while they actually do divert scarce resources from real law enforcement. Further, while there is anecdotal evidence like the example you cite about tragedies at Fort Hood and elsewhere, you (IMHO) correctly identify the perp as a "psycho." In those cases, you can reasonable expect "psychos" to obtain guns, pressure cookers, or whatever else they can devise to implement their mayhem. It doesn't necessarily follow that tighter gun restrictions equals less violent crimes. In fact, there are studies that suggest the opposite - especially in the United States.

If you think the above points are "misinformation," then you are addicted to spin or have your head buried in the sand.

Again - the points they make and which I have asterisked above are totally true. When you negotiate with people over rights restrictions - ANY rights restrictions - and those people have as their goal the total ELIMINATION of your rights, then that IS complete folly. It has been shown time and time again that when principles are compromised for the sake of being "reasonable," it just translates to losing slowly. And in the case of gun control, "paperwork schemes" have done nothing to reduce crime - they just increase the bureaucracy at government expense which needs more tax dollars to feed its ineptitude.

Those are the points they are making, and IMHO - that is THEIR best argument. It's not MY argument - but it's the best one I've seen coming from THEM.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by sebekm
 
Political Potpourri
August 13, 2014
As they say on Bret Baier’s “Special Report” program, “here are a few pickings from the political grapevine”: *It appears that the media is finally beginning to turn and get tough on President Obama. Last week the Washington Post – liberal bastion and investigator of all things Republican – chose ...
Read More »
 
ObamaCare Update
August 13, 2014
In case you missed them – here are a few headlines regarding ObamaCare from earlier this month: *”Barney Frank: They “Just Lied to People” About ObamaCare That’s right – Barney Frank, Democrat and former long-term congressman FINALLY made this admission in a recent interview with the Huffington Post: “The rollout ...
Read More »
 
Want To Have The (Absolute) Last Word……
August 06, 2014
…and have some fun with it? Write your own obituary and make it humorous and self-deprecating. That’s what Kevin McGroarty did. He wrote it when he knew the end was near, and all the newspaper had to do was fill in the date. Here it is: “Obituary Kevin J. McGroarty ...
Read More »
 
One Reason Our “Do Nothing Congress” Does Nothing
August 06, 2014
Much has been said about GOP “obstructionism” – particularly as it relates to President Obama’s liberal agenda. It’s clear that as far as Republicans are concerned, President Obama NEEDS to be obstructed. But little has been said or written about Democrat “obstructionism.” Yes – that definitely exists as well, and ...
Read More »
 
Obama’s “Legislative” Strategy
July 30, 2014
According to our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to MAKE the laws; the President is supposed to “faithfully EXECUTE” the laws, and the Judiciary is supposed to INTERPRET the laws (in a constitutional and legislative context). But now comes our President who believes his oath of office is not to ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology