Correia Redux on Gun Control

[DaleA]

One of the finest articles ever on gun control was written by Larry Correia. He wrote it shortly after Sandy Hook (December 2012) but I've just read it again and again it still is one of the best pieces ever written (IMhO) from the pro-gun side of the aisle. It got lots of praise from everyone on this site when he first published it.

You can read it here:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/...n-gun-control/

One of his quotes from the article really strike a chord today with our lawmakers filibustering and staging sit-ins.

Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

And to be 'fair and balanced' here's an anti-gun person (sadly from my own state, Minnesota) with an article titled "I Hate Guns". Actually I do admit I respect him a bit because he came right out and didn't sugar coat his opinion or go after us with a thousand 'common sense' gun laws.
http://kentnerburn.com/i-hate-guns/

[Skans]

I read Kent Nerburn's article and decided to respond to it. He may delete it from his blog, we'll see. However, I've decided to re-post it here. This is what I wrote:

Well, I hate people who claim to hate guns, and who berate people who like guns by trying to make them out as some kind of psycho sexual for having them. How do you “hate” an inanimate object? Either you are nuts, or what you are really saying is that you hate people who like guns. Kent, I believe you really hate people who like guns. You are a hater, and for that reason alone, we gun owners are justified in fearing you and your brand of oppression.

On the topic of why anyone should have 25 guns. First, having a gun collection is more akin to having a coin collection, a car collection, a pocket watch collection, or a collection of Japanese cloisonne vases. This is America, why shouldn’t we be allowed to have 25 of something if we can afford to purchase it? That’s freedom, Kent. That’s the pursuit of happiness for some people.

The fact that you even state “…25 anything other than perhaps baseball caps and pairs of shoes, and those things are questionable enough in themselves.” QUESTIONABLE! Questionable to whom? You? Are you the so self-righteous as to think you are the benevolent dictator who can tell others what they can and cannot have for their own good? Do you look upon us as your lovable, but ignorant children? Or, perhaps just your worthless children, like Kim Jong-Un and Kim Jong-il do their subjects.

Then, you berate people who can “barely feed their family”, but have 25 guns. First, I think you are completely making this up – you’re just spewing nonsense. Second, it’s far more likely that you will find people in the inner city from fatherless families, or who are Meth/Crack junkies who can barely feed themselves. Kent, I guess you don’t want to talk about that, just mythical gun owners who steal money from the mouth of babes to support their gun addiction. Let’s get real, Kent, your rant is based on bull-crap - on a burning balloon. Heroin, crack, meth, marijuana, gambling, not a problem for Kent Nurbern, but a family man with a gun collection is simply starving his family.

“Out of control capitalist society” – I see, this isn’t just a rant against guns or gun owners, but all capitalists. I’m an evil capitalist if I work my ass off in school, make good grades so I can go to a decent college, do well in college instead of getting drunk and stoned every night, actually get a job as soon as I graduate, save and invest my money so I don’t have to sponge off the labor of others. I suppose according to Kent, that makes me evil – well, golly Gomer, if enough people like Kent want to oppress people like me because I work hard and strive to accumulate a little wealth, maybe that’s a damn good reason to own 25 firearms and 25,000 rounds of ammunition too.

But, that’s not all, Kent goes even further. What does Kent really mean when he says I have blood on my hands if I “trot out tired old bromides and talk about abstractions”? What Kent is really saying is that if I express my opinion on why I support gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment, then Kent labels me a murderer. That’s right, Kent Nerburn is willing to declare me a murderer for simply expressing an opinion. Engaging in Speech. Exercising my First Amendment right. Kent wants to shut me up and shut others who have similar views to mine as well by not only criminalizing my gun ownership but criminalizing my right to express opinions on gun ownership.

Kent, I have no blood on my hands. But, throughout human history, people just like you, condescending, tyrants who feel the compulsion to force others to think and do as they see fit do have blood on their hands. The blood of millions.

[natman]

I read Kent Nerburn's article and decided to respond to it. He may delete it from his blog, we'll see

Well said, indeed.

[Pgfins]

Excellent response Skans!!! Bravo and well said!! You nailed pretty much every elitist attitude out there. There is no interest in dialog. I just wish people would wake up because the issue of gun control illustrates perfectly why it is impossible to have common sense dialog with the left on anything. It's not just gun control, it's there overall belief in the "collective state" vs we the people. It starts and end with that, which flies in the face of freedom.

[SC4006]

I've had that exact article by Larry Correia bookmarked for years, and refer to it quite a bit. It definitely is one of the greatest pieces on gun control I've read.

Skans, I thought your response was spot on; I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Rangerrich99]

I just wanted to thank DaleA for his OP and the link to L. Correia's essay. He definitely poses his arguments thoughtfully. Which, in turn gives me more ammo for when I end up in these pro- vs. anti- discussions.

[DaleA]

Well he did post your response Skans but it's his web site so he gets the last word and his last words are 'he still hates guns'.

Sigh.

Thanks for trying.

[huntinaz]

Sanks, awesome response


Overall an excellent perspective and Correia hits a lot of great points. One (and only) gripe I have, I know I'll get kickback but want to add it. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to derail the thread and am in very large agreement with Correia. One little thing that I wish he'd taken his own advice on and it's a common misconception:

From Correia:

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed.

They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

The part in bold I agree with completely with and it is what I believe should have been lumped into his mental illness section (quoted below). The part in italics is my gripe. I've seen it time and again. Guys, blaming these drugs is no different than blaming guns. It is taking something you don't understand and blaming it for behavior that is undesirable. People are scared of drugs. People are scared of guns. This usually stems from a misunderstanding or lack of education. It's trading one scapegoat for another. I hate to say it but just because your brother/sister/uncle/cousin's babysitter takes Zoloft doesn't mean you understand anything about Zoloft or antidepressants.

In my opinion, he should have taken his own advice and left out the attempt at shifting the scapegoat. From Correia's very next argument point:

Mental Health Issues

And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

Some will be quick to argue, but consider some points. Also I am not suggesting I know for certain they have nothing to do with anything, my argument is we should not throw "antipsychotic" medications under the bus for the single reason that we don't understand them. Points to consider:

1. Mass killings have been happening well before the invention of antipsychotics> even Wikipedia acknowledges this.

2. Antipsychotics are given to people who already have been determined to have some form of mental illness. There is good evidence that by and large these medications help these symptoms improve. Of course they are overprescribed, and this is complicated.

3. But 80% of the scumbags are on meds... according to who? Some guy on the internet. This number is so beyond provable that it's ridiculous. It's an impossible figure for numerous reasons and these are only a few; when did we start measuring this? Been happening for a long time including before they were invented. Who verified this study? Peer reviewed? Or is it just on the internet? Anyone ever heard of HIPAA? It would be illegal to disclose what meds they are on. Also, were they actually taking their medication? Every case would require a thorough investigation and this is not an investigation that happens. This is not evidence, it is speculation. We get angry when the other side does this, let's not so it ourselves

4. To muddy the issue further, mental illness is extremely complicated and not well understood. People are "crazy" to a dizzying amount of degrees. This is most often not violent. It's easy to blame "mental illness" and it's becoming an umbrella, catch-all phrase that means nothing. Like "assault rifles." This is congruent with Correia's mental illness arguing point and I am in complete agreement with him.

[Skans]

Well, I [Kent Nerburn] saw that you were convinced I would delete your post.

Interesting. True, I was convinced that he would delete it (it's actually conditionally posted, subject to deletion on his board) However, I didn't say that in my post on his board. I only said it here above.

[DaleA]

With the current stuff going on I think this thread deserves a bump.

As of this date, October 5, 2017 the post by Larry Correia is still up as well as the 'I Hate Guns' post.

Almost everything I'd like to say about gun control is said by Correia in his post and he says it much better and with more authority than I ever could.

[JohnKSa]

...preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

A very good point.

The fact that the antis push so hard immediately after a shooting tragedy is a tacit admission that they realize their agenda can't stand on its own merits and is really only viable when emotions are running very high and logical thought is on the back burner.

If these laws were really about common sense and if the facts supported them, then there would be no need to push them so hard after a tragedy. It would be simple to support them any time with facts and logic.

[Colorado Redneck]

Post #8 makes an excellent point about dragging psychotropic drugs into conversations about gun control. That needs to stop.

[doofus47]

Why did I know kent nerburn would have a beard...?

It would be nice if there were no guns ever needed for self-defense. It would be nice if no one ever needed self-defense for any reason against any violent assault..

One of these article writers accepts the world as it is. The other goes to Portland and looks at the rest of the country (world?) as sick.

Don't agree with either 100% but I know who I would rather have living on my block.

[RC20]

The fact that the antis push so hard immediately after a shooting tragedy is a tacit admission that they realize their agenda can't stand on its own merits and is really only viable when emotions are running very high and logical thought is on the back burner.

First, while it comes to rights, being in a minority is not a factor (gun owner) , you are only 30% of the population.

Why do your political views prevail?

As I noted in another statement, I believe in the variation of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and I will do my utmost to change the situation on which you comment on".

In short the statement as a logical construct is a bunch of self serving Bunkum.

So, lets discuss reality. The Republicans have taken over the nations states legislative bodies (legally) as well as many governorships.

In Wisconsin they have Gerrymandered the state so successfully they far out represent the Democrats (while taken to extremes by the Republicans, the Demos have done the same thing as our so called perfect Constitution failed to deal with that subject) .

So, the Republicans control the levers of powers despite the fact they do not in fact represent the views of the public as has been demonstrated by many valid poles (though most die hard Republicans just call those fake as they do not fit into their world view)

Most people consider a range of issues and vote for candidates that despite flaws and areas they don't like, have enough they can accept (or dislike the other candidates so overall) and vote accordingly.

Frothing 2nd Amendementers vote on one issue, the NRA has successfully leveraged itself into a bunkum group that lives and dies on just that issue.

In short, like gorilla warfare, 10% of a population group can disrupt and even destroy the 90% of society who are not.

So the reason progressive work on the issue in a crisis is not your pablum, its the only period when there is enough focus by the 90% who are the majority.

All the Republicans do is kill any efforts in legation otherwise as there is no focus and there is no repercussions as they have to have that going on during an election.

Of the 30% who own guns in this country a small minority want that current right to be unlimited. Having see idiots handling guns, I not only thing it needs restricted, I belief the 2nd Amendment does not even endorse what its been twisted to be, ala a right.

As there are no State Militias, there is no right to keep and bear arms as a given right per free speech. Its dead and void as is Slavery that was also enshrined in the US Constitution at one point.

Gun ownership is then in the same vein as automobiles, a privilege not a right.

[magnumPi]

Originally Posted by RC20

First, while it comes to rights, being in a minority is not a factor (gun owner) , you are only 30% of the population.

Why do your political views prevail?

As I noted in another statement, I believe in the variation of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and I will do my utmost to change the situation on which you comment on".

In short the statement as a logical construct is a bunch of self serving Bunkum.

So, lets discuss reality. The reptilians have taken over the nations states legislative bodies (legally) as well as many governorships.

In Wisconsin they have Gerrymandered the state so successfully they far out represent the Democrats (while taken to extremes by the reptilians, the Demos have done the same thing as our so called perfect Constitution failed to deal with that subject) .

So, the reptilians control the levers of powers despite the fact they do not in fact represent the views of the public as has been demonstrated by many valid poles (though most die hard reptilians just call those fake as they do not fit into their world view)

Most people consider a range of issues and vote for candidates that despite flaws and areas they don't like, have enough they can accept (or dislike the other candidates so overall) and vote accordingly.

Frothing 2nd Amendementers vote on one issue, the NRA has successfully leveraged itself into a bunkum group that lives and dies on just that issue.

In short, like gorilla warfare, 10% of a population group can disrupt and even destroy the 90% of society who are not.

So the reason progressive work on the issue in a crisis is not your pablum, its the only period when there is enough focus by the 90% who are the majority.

All the reptilians do is kill any efforts in legation otherwise as there is no focus and there is no repercussions as they have to have that going on during an election.

Of the 30% who own guns in this country a small minority want that current right to be unlimited. Having see idiots handling guns, I not only thing it needs restricted, I belief the 2nd Amendment does not even endorse what its been twisted to be, ala a right.

As there are no State Militias, there is no right to keep and bear arms as a given right per free speech. Its dead and void as is Slavery that was also enshrined in the US Constitution at one point.

Gun ownership is then in the same vein as automobiles, a privilege not a right.

let's see,
you refer to gun owners as "you are only 30% of the population" and not "we are only 30% of the population"
You don't believe, in your own words, that we have the right to keep and bear arms. You see it as a privilege.
Why are you even here? Based on how you constantly belittle other's opinions, it's obvious that we disgust you.

[Salmoneye]

Originally Posted by RC20

First, while it comes to rights, being in a minority is not a factor (gun owner) , you are only 30% of the population.

Why do your political views prevail?

A minority's rights and/or political views don't get to prevail...

But neither can they be quashed by the majority in a Constitutional Republic...

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by RC20

Frothing 2nd Amendementers vote on one issue, the NRA has successfully leveraged itself into a bunkum group that lives and dies on just that issue.

Um, the NRA is a gun rights advocacy organization. They SHOULD live and die on that issue. It's their primary mission after all.

NRA members may choose whether or not to take the NRA's stance into account when they go to the ballot box. That's their right as free citizens.

(FWIW in past threads, I've been one of the voices criticizing the NRA for their occasional forays into other stereotypically right-wing culture-war issues, which IMHO could needlessly alienate some otherwise pro-gun voters... but that's a topic for another thread.)

[JohnKSa]

First, while it comes to rights, being in a minority is not a factor (gun owner) , you are only 30% of the population.

.....

Gun ownership is then in the same vein as automobiles, a privilege not a right.

As far as I can tell, you randomly picked a quote from the thread and then wrote a rambling, error-filled response that had essentially nothing to do with the quote you picked.

Maybe you meant to start a new thread?

[natman]

Originally Posted by RC20

I belief the 2nd Amendment does not even endorse what its been twisted to be, ala a right.

As there are no State Militias, there is no right to keep and bear arms as a given right per free speech. Its dead and void as is Slavery that was also enshrined in the US Constitution at one point.

Gun ownership is then in the same vein as automobiles, a privilege not a right.

Nonsense. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and is every bit as much a right as the First, Fourth or any other constitutional amendment.

Just because the word "militia" appears in the amendment doesn't mean that membership in a militia is a prerequisite of the right. There is no verb, no clause in the amendment that supports this twisted view.

This has been explicitly confirmed by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. [emphasis added]

The prefatory clause is the part about militias. The operative clause is the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed.

The only thing that's dead and void is this sad old twisted "only in a militia" argument.