Ghod knows how many of these posts I’ve put up over the past 11+ years. So, some columnist from Madison, Wisconsin — Yeah, a hot-bed of right thinking /snark — likes to hunt. But, Dave Cieslewicz, the columnist, previously wrote that semi-automatics should be banned:
Now, I am a gun owner, but I don’t view my guns as the bulwark of my freedom; I see them as pieces of recreational equipment that I store next to my golf clubs. My guns are no more important to my freedom than my nine iron, and we’d be in sorry shape if our liberty depended on my accuracy with either.
My proposal probably should apply to my own semi-automatic deer-hunting rifle, but that’s okay. My gunsmith tells me that the old 30.06 isn’t long for this world anyway and I’ve wanted to replace it with a bolt action.
But isn’t this kind of effective gun control a violation of the Second Amendment? Yes, based on some wrong-headed 5-4 rulings from an outrageously conservative U.S. Supreme Court, my proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the Second Amendment. But that doesn’t point out what’s wrong with the idea; it points out what’s wrong with the Second Amendment. In my view the Second Amendment should be amended or repealed, and failing that, we can only hope that a more moderate court will restore some sanity to its interpretation some day.
What he (and so many others) call “moderate,” we know means lefty-liberal. They love to throw around nice TV sound-bites such as “reasonable” and “common sense” and anyone who dares to question their definitions is a “right-wing” “extremist.”
Incidentally, using this fool’s own words, that “outrageously conservative U.S. Supreme Court” ruled in favor of restrictions (”regulations”) on the Second Amendment. I guess we should also interpret them as outrageously conservative because they ruled for recognition of “gay marriage” in some respects and also that Obamacare was legal. Goodness, according to Dave Cieslewicz (the author of these screeds), you’d think that John Roberts (disdained by conservatives for his rulings) is somehow slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.
Well, anyway, his gunsmith was right in that his semi-auto shotgun broke. So, now, more righteous than you or me, he’s replaced it with a bolt-action. Again, he attempts to speak for all when he sanctimoniously writes:
I feel pretty strongly that there is no place in our society for handguns or for semi-automatic weapons of any kind. It is those two styles of weapon that have done the most damage in our society. Semi-automatics are the weapons of choice for mass murderers, like the one who killed two-dozen kids and teachers in Connecticut almost a year ago. And handguns give easy access to deadly force to street thugs and despondent people who find in them a way that is all too efficient to take their own lives.
Whatever legitimate joy handguns and semi-automatic weapons give to those who use them in firing ranges or simply for collecting, that doesn’t nearly justify the tremendous damage they do. In my view, they should be banned altogether.
So, my problem with my semi-automatic deer rifle was that it was a little hypocritical of me to own one. I say “a little,” because in truth my five round semi-automatic was not that much different from the bolt action I replaced it with.
So, then, what the fuck is the point of your column? Because, you say, some mutant thugs and psychos prefer semi-auto’s for their evil deeds and you don’t — what? — want to be associated with them because you own one too? So, you’ll compromise your own law-abiding behavior and all of our rights. You’ll restrict what you do, and own, so you’re not associated with any object that murderers might also possess? Congratulations!
And, he confirms it here:
For the purposes of dispatching a deer and taking home some venison, the Remington 700 30.06 bolt action rifle is all I need. It wouldn’t work nearly as well for mass murder. And that’s my point. It’s all anyone needs for any legitimate purpose worth caring about. It’s the kind of gun that any self-respecting liberal Madisonian should own.
Oh. So, you know of and speak for all of everyone’s “legitimate purposes” and you get to decide what all of us only need to own? Sounds a lot like what Democrats in Congress, and the liar-in-chief want us to believe. Government and the liberals who control it, and the MSNBC, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, et al, lap dogs for Obama, all are convinced that a liberal, leftist, all controlling government is best for all us dumb gun owners.
However, not all of us are willing to submit to total control over our lives by a nanny-state government that psychotically believes that it knows better than us; knows what we should do; knows what we can be trusted to own; knows that only they can be trusted and we can not. Thanks, Dave, for having such a high opinion of the 99% of the U.S. population that obeys the laws and doesn’t murder people.