Letters to the Editor
-
How about this
To MackK who says:
" There is absolutely no reason to believe that widespread possession of handguns protects individual freedom..."
I'll give you a few for starters: the French resistance during WWII. The Swiss are LOADED with weapons, specifically so citizens can act in defense (be it national defense or against their own government) and have no problems with being armed to the hilt with military-class weapons. Then there is the United States. How did we win our freedom from King George? Hmmm, was it via passive resistance? No. Was it by voting? No. Oh yeah, it was with weapons, many of which were brought to the fight by their owners who were...plain ole citizens.
National character counts. Some people simply go along and don't resist and this is part of their national culture. Very few countries are as focused on individualism and individual liberty as the US is and had been. I REALLY seriously doubt that the US would simply fall to tyrannical government the way the Germans did (I, for one, would fight and have the weapons to do so and it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the odds). YOU are free to choose for yourself that you would rather quietly get along or passively resist tyranny here, but that isn't my way nor the way of many many American citizens. Some of us take the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment very seriously. They mean what they say and were not merely rhetorical flourishes.
-
The only "nut" here is you, mackK
"gun ownership in Germany was widespread during the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The Soviet Union, again hunting rifles and ex-military weapons were widely owned, ditto most of Eastern Europe,"
I don't know where you got that bullshit, but it's bullshit just the same. Quote your source or admit you either pulled that "fact" out of your ass, or you deliberately lied.
-
The Politics of Gun Control
Alex Koppelman's article was about the politics of guns, not the rightness or wrongness of gun control. There ARE a good number of single-issue voters on the hot-button social issues such as guns, abortion, and gays; and rural/red-staters ARE disproportionately powerful under the anti-democratic U.S. electoral system. So the question is whether there is ANY reason for Democrats to want to push gun control as an issue in '08.
The easy answer is, of course, no. But with each new school shooting, America's soul dies just a little bit more; and I am confident that these massacres will not be allowed to go on forever. Sooner or later there will be too many Columbines and Virginia Techs -- too many days where a hitherto "law abiding gun owner" lines up a dozen or so young Amish girls in their classroom and assassinates them. Eventually, even red-staters will have had enough of this insane slaughter; a tipping point will be reached; and the U.S. will move to stop the gun carnage that is making it the laughing stock and wonder of the civilized world.
Has that tipping point now been reached? I don't know (perhaps because for me it was reached so long ago); but when it does come, I hope Democrats will be there to lead us.
-
French Resistance, the Swiss, the American Revolution -- all piffle and nonsense!
"I'll give you a few for starters: the French resistance during WWII. The Swiss are LOADED with weapons, specifically so citizens can act in defense (be it national defense or against their own government) and have no problems with being armed to the hilt with military-class weapons. Then there is the United States. How did we win our freedom from King George? Hmmm, was it via passive resistance? No. Was it by voting? No. Oh yeah, it was with weapons, many of which were brought to the fight by their owners who were...plain ole citizens."
ALL HORSEHIT! that Anonymous clearly posted anonymously out of embarassment.
An american right winger citing the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" sheesh. almost anyone who know anything about the history of WW II knows that the French resistance role in the war was minimal and wildly exagerated after the war. Moreover, to the extent that it made a major contribution it was through sabotage, particularly or railway lines and phone lines, which did not involve the substantial use fo firearms, and most of the waepons it used were either farmers guns (i.e., shotguns), stolen weapons, or allied supplied Sten guns. OS this statement as my History teacher used to say, is absolute piffle and nonsense.
"The Swiss are loaded with weapons" -- indeed, as part of their military all Swiss men serve in the army and keep rifles (and some pistols for officers, etc.) at home. So that is as part of a militia a detail you seem to be misinformed of -- and by the way, if you are not a good soldier you don't have a gun. Moreover, there is now a controversy in Switzerland because the high murder rate is leading the Swiss to wonder if Militia members should be required to return guns to an arsenal since there is no credible military threat (and they are converting their fall-out shelters to saunas and wine cellers.) It was the fact that the heavily armed Swiss Army (with artillery, etc.) looked like it would fight on tough terrain, combined with the negligeable amount to be gained form a neutral that already "played ball with them," that kept the Germans out, not a gun owning society.
Then the American revolution- well sorry to burst you bubble Anonymous, but it was the militia and the Continental Army that won that, not plucky 'Anonymous' with his Saturday night special -- (oh and by the way, you do know the difference between a rifle and musket (long arms) and a pistol, nearly no one fought seriously in the revolutionary wars with pistols, jsut as no one does today.) How were they armed with rifles (few) and muskets, well, apart from a small number of woodsmen, the Continental Army and Militia's were initially armed using prexisting arsenals supplied at British demand (the militias were organised to fight the French initially), and kept in arsenals in the major colonial towns. Do you in your foggy romantic recolection of history recall the rise of Paul Revere -- what was the British military detachment marching to do? -- yes that is right, to seize the militia's arsenal. The Continental army was further supplied with muskets and firearms by the French, captured from the British, manufactured for it and various other sources -- funny thing armies, you need to get them carrying more or less the same equipment when they have firearms, for supply reasons and tactics.
In short Anonymous, historically, your statement was, to use my old history teacher's phrase "piffle and nonsense."