Reality Beats Meme |

That oz. of prevention vs. a lb. of cure thing really has merit! Too bad few outside of our community will hear of it. John Downs did a hell of allot of good and Athens, OH owes him their thanks.

GREAT WORK JOHN!

Gun prohibitionists? You mean those asshats who say only police should have guns? Gee, where do *they* get guns I wonder?

The diabolical NRA is the worst death merchant of all, selling machine guns and hand grenades to high school students through the mail without doing any background checks. I agree with our Dear Leader and HillBilly that we need to exterminate that evil organization of violent gun fanatics now!

I’m an FFL and I was gratified to read this story a few days ago since I am of the same mindset: I scrutinize my customers closely. And any hint of an irregularity will stop the transaction.
And I feel the majority of FFLs share this viewpoint: certainly among those FFLs I know.
Glad you brought the article up in your blog since this is really the norm. Thanks.

Hmm…seems to have not made it to the front page of my local big city paper where you might expect to see such news…oh, forgot, this is MA, only negative gun stories get published.

Mas, I am rereading a book by Bruce N. Eimer, Ph.d who is a Physiologist who calls him self a gun therapist. Col. Jeff Cooper coined the phrase Hoplophia but Dr. Eimer breaks it down to this. Hoplon comes from the greek word weapon phobia is the word for natural fear of something. I quote Dr. Eimer from his book ” Hoplophia’s need therapy because of their natural fear of guns because they are afraid that if they on a weapon themselves they very well could act upon the urge to use it to murder the people whom they do not like.”

I was just thinking since Dr. Eimer says they need therapy everyone who has a FaceBook page needs to quote Dr. Eimer from his book and bring into the light things that they wouldn’t like said about themselves. They have a legitimate medical condition that is causing an effect upon men and women of this great nation of ours that is not only affecting our right to self preservation but they are also trying to take away our Civil rights protected under our Constitution. So why don’t we start by having all Hoplophia’s labeled as being dangerous to every American because of their need of therapy.

I live my life in pain everyday from he time I wake up until the time I go to bed. I need both knees replaced, I have had one fusion in my back and need 2 more, I have 5 bulging disc in my neck and need surgery on both shoulders, it would take to long to tell what all I have wrong with them. I had 2 strokes about 3 months ago and will not even consider having surgery on anything for awhile. I see 3 different Doctors and each one tries to get me to go to pain management and I tell them no because thats not living. Being hooked on pain meds kills more people each year that people with guns, drunk drivers’ and cancer. And my take on it is the pharmaceutical companies make so much money off of these meds and the profits get passed around enough that there won’t be anything done about it anyways. I chose not to take pain meds and deal with the pain in my on way and that is my choice. Yes it limits my life of what I can and can not do but it is my choice. Just like I have chosen not to break any laws that would take away my freedom to have the right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon which I practice everyday.

We have the greatest country in the world here in America, but stupidity is taking that away from us. And to just prove my point look at the following Hilliary Clinton has. I am just going to leave that right there.

So to end this We The People need to start writing our elected officials and have declared by the CDC that Hoplophia has a grave impact on our way of life in this country of ours and they need to be put upon a list that would not allow them to be able to run for any elected office until they get the therapy they need. And if they have any thoughts of resending back into the Hoplophia condition they should be band for life from politics.

The definition of stupid is know better and chosing to do the opposite. There is a list we should have many elected officials on with a new Amendment to our Constitution if your are ever elected and are put on this list you lose your right to ever server as a politician again.

The reason that the gun prohibitionist like to paint FFL dealers, firearms manufactures and the NRA as “Merchants of Death” is due to their thinking being dominated by the left-wing worldview.

They adopt the philosophy that all humans are good and that all evils spring from external sources outside of mankind himself. They cannot blame humans for so-called “Gun Violence”. Therefore, they actually view guns, themselves, not as inanimate objects but as animate and active sources of evil. Therefore, anyone who makes or sells firearms or, like the NRA, who supports gun ownership is “selling evil”. In their minds, it is as bad or worse than dealing in illegal narcotics or white slavery.

Since they also believe that humans are good, something must be causing these people (FFL dealers, NRA, etc.) to deal in these evil objects. Some external social force (under the left-wing worldview) MUST BE TO BLAME!

So, they blame capitalist greed. In their minds, FFL dealers and the NRA MUST KNOW that they are merchants of death! But greed has so consumed their hearts as to make them a party to this evil (from the left-wing point of view).

Therefore, the hatred that they spew toward FFL dealers, firearms manufactures and the NRA is very real since they believe that they are literally “selling their souls to the devil” just to earn a few more dollars.

The idea that these groups (FFL’s, NRA, etc.) might actually BELIEVE in self-defense, the shooting sports and the 2nd Amendment is so alien to the left-wing mode of thought that they cannot truly credit it. It is much more comforting for them to just believe that these people are all greedy SOB’s who prostitute their souls for money.

I would also like to add an addendum to my post above. In my above post, I pointed out that the left-wing worldview forces gun prohibitionists to view FFL’s, Firearms manufacturers and the NRA as “Merchants of Death”.

I would also add that this explains the strategy of the gun prohibitionists in attempting to use the courts to sue firearms manufacturers out-of-business.

Since the gun prohibitionists dismiss gun rights (i.e. belief in the 2nd Amendment) as just a “smoke screen” generated for public consumption and since they believe that capitalist greed is the “true” driving force behind the “gun culture” in the United States, then the best approach is to directly attack the source of the problem (from their point of view). If they can use the courts to increase the liability costs, of selling firearms, to such an extent that it is no longer profitable to deal in these evil objects, then they will drive a stake in the heart of the capitalist greed that drives the whole situation.

They hope that, once the dollars are gone, the resistance to their gun control / gun registration / gun confiscation schemes will also vanish.

This explains why the current left-wing Candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, is so eager (and pledges to) roll back the current legal protections against suing firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of firearms. These protections are standing directly in the way of a left-wing attack on (what they believe) is the very heart of the problem.

TN_MAN,

I feel compelled to compliment your ability to put into words, coherently, the sentiments and observations of my own.

As a retired law enforcement officer, during my career, much time and effort was expended trying to settle disputes between folks, hopefully without having to arrest anyone. Part of my training included Transaction Analysis, trying to listen to and understand both sides of a disagreement, show as much empathy to all parties as was necessary to keep a dialogue going and hopefully guide that disagreement to a peaceful conclusion.

Having said that, following this blog, I have enjoyed your posts as being both eloquent and indicative of someone of education. Another contributor, Liberal Dave, whose worldview and political bent I disagree with, also draws my admiration for his ability to produce well thought out, knowledgeable posts to support his point of view in a non-confrontational manner.

We all know that Liberal Dave is an attorney by education and career. If you feel comfortable with revealing your background, it would, at least for me, help understand how your world view and stance on guns was developed.

If not, that’s ok. I will continue to read and enjoy your comments.

By the way, I enjoy and respect everyone’s (well, maybe not some of the occasional trolls) comments on Mas’s blog. Keep ’em coming.

Dennis, thank you very much for those kind words, I appreciate them very much. And I have to add: Back atcha, since you’re another of the voices of reason here. When people talk and reason together, instead of merely hurling insults, it’s amazing just how much they learn that they agree and how much that agreement turns into respect which can, in turn, influence further understanding and agreement as well as tolerance of the areas in which they do not agree.

I do have this question about the actions of the gun dealer in this case:

There’s a federal law that gives greater immunity to firearm dealers and manufacturers than to manufacturers and dealers of other consumer products, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” but that law has an exception for dealers who negligently entrust firearms to someone. That is, if they sell a firearm to someone who a reasonable person would believe is likely to use the firearm to harm someone else, they can be sued for damages if that, in fact, happens.

So, if this dealer had sold the gun and the buyer had hurt someone with it — likely since “he made statements that indicated he may want to harm himself or others” per the linked news story — the dealer could very well have been facing a major lawsuit.

So just how virtuous was it to not sell a gun to him? I suppose that you could make a case that he could have gone ahead and sold the gun, lied about the guy telling him anything, and if needed erased any security camera footage that recorded the transaction, but if that’s the argument is it any more virtuous to not sell a gun that you could have been sued over than it is virtuous to cover up the fact that you shouldn’t have sold a gun to someone?

If any of that is virtue, then I also need to be commended for paying my bills when they’re due, not brake-checking the tailgater on my way to the grocery store today, and for not building my fence some years ago a few feet over onto my neighbor’s property.

What would have been virtuous, but isn’t mentioned in any of the two or three versions of that story that I’ve read, is for the dealer to have called law enforcement _before_ the buyer returned to the store. He had his name and address and other information from doing the background check and, given his concern, he could certainly have noted the make, model, and license plate number of his vehicle. (And he may have had some of that already, since when the guy returned he was able to turn off his store lights and “open” sign and get everyone into the back, which indicates that he had enough time to do that before the guy came through the door.) So, he was concerned enough that he might harm himself or others that he wouldn’t sell him a gun and enough that he went into full defense mode the minute the guy showed back up on the property, but what did he do until he felt that he, himself, and his customers were threatened? Only the minimum necessary to avoid liability, not even a call to 911 to say, “Hey, there was this guy…”

@ Dennis

I don’t mind giving a few details about myself since you are interested. I am a licensed Professional Engineer. I hold degrees in both Mechanical and Civil Engineering.

My interest in firearms is purely personal rather than professional. I mainly do Civil Engineering work in my professional life today although I have worked in the automotive industry in the past. I do not work (and have never worked) in the firearms industry. Nevertheless, firearms and their history is (naturally) very interesting to someone like me with an engineering background.

I grew up in a rural area of Tennessee and spent time during my youth in the outdoor sports of hunting, fishing and camping. I am now middle-aged and so my shooting is now mostly at the range. I am a life member of the NRA, an enthusiastic re-loader, a member of a gun club and I try to go shooting at my range whenever I have the time.

I am also interested in self-defense and hold a concealed carry permit. I have taken a number of training courses including Mas’ MAG-40 class.

In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned over the direction America seems to be taking. It seems to me that both the middle-class and political moderation is under attack. The leftists have greatly penetrated the main stream media and higher education. This has provoked a right-wing backlash with the result that this country is becoming increasingly polarized. You probably noticed that my posts tend to harp on this point.

I think that most people give little thought as to why humanity tends to be divided into left-wing and right-wing camps. Note that this is not just an American phenomenon. It is worldwide and encompasses the whole human race. Any democratic nation that allows the formation of free political parties can expect to see right-wing and left-wing variants. This indicates that there is something in human nature or human psychology causing this division.

Most people just seem to, without much thought, pick one side or the other and then join the fray. I did not do so. Instead, I tried to figure out what was causing this strange political polarization of the population. To quote from Dr. Seuss:

“And he puzzled and puzzled, `till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before.”

In other words, I had an epiphany. I realized that the human mind is programed, at a subconscious level, to try to understand the world about us. Furthermore, if the world is complex and difficult to understand, the human mind will (again subconsciously) make simplifying assumptions about the world so as to reduce the complexity down to an understandable level.
Human behavior, especially with regard to good and evil, is one of those thorny, complex problems. Most people (based upon their own personality and their childhood experiences) tend to (subconsciously) make simplifying assumptions about this aspect of their fellow man. Specifically, most people (as they mature) will subconsciously begin to assume that human nature tends to be either “good” or “evil”. The assumption that they make has a PROFOUND effect upon that individual’s political orientation.

Individuals who assume that mankind is inherently “good” must, of necessity, place the blame for all evils upon something other than man himself. They must look for some external or social factor to blame for the evils that mankind experiences. This is the left-wing ideology. A leftist can be easily identified because he or she will always insist that the blame for any problem belongs to society-at-large or to some aspect of mankind’s external environment. A leftist will never blame the individual.

On the other hand, assuming that mankind is inherently “evil” tends to generate a world-view whereby the blame is always placed directly at the feet of the human(s) who perpetrated the evil. Outside, external factors tend to be dismissed an unimportant. This is the right-wing view.

The problem of so-called “Gun Violence” is an excellent illustration of how this works. In reality, a man with a gun forms a “weapon system” that is more deadly than either alone. A man can kill with just his bare hands but he can do it much more efficiently if he has a loaded gun in those hands. The gun is inanimate and will never do any harm (by itself) unless it is defective in some way.

A leftist person looks at this “weapon system” but (since he believes mankind is inherently good) he places 100% of the blame for any resulting harm on the gun. Therefore, his solution to the problem is “Gun Control”. To defang this “weapon system”, he wants to get rid of the gun. He assumes that the man will revert to his natural state of being sweet, innocent, kind and good just as soon as that nasty firearm is removed from the equation.

A right-wing person looks at this same problem but (since he believes mankind is inherently evil) he places 100% of the blame on the man who used the gun while considering the gun itself as a “non-factor”. He rejects gun control as a solution and instead would prefer strict criminal penalties for anyone who misuses a gun.

Indeed, any political issue (whereby there are distinct left-wing and right-wing policy differences) can be traced back to this basic idea. The different underlying assumptions are what gives rise to the difference in policies.
In truth, neither side is fully right nor fully wrong. Humans are never purely good nor evil, therefore, neither the right-wing nor left-wing views can ever be 100% correct. Unfortunately, zealots on both sides foolishly believe that their views are 100% correct and that the other side is 100% wrong and then they stubbornly hold to their views and refuse to compromise. Often, to the point where a civil war breaks out which is where I fear America is headed.

Therefore, as you noticed, I often use my blog comments to try to make the left-wing view understandable to the largely right-wing (excluding Liberal Dave) audience of this blog. This does not mean that I approve of left-wing ideals. I find them to be much too theoretical and “ivory tower” for my taste. I also know that they typically give rise to unintended consequences that are often worse than the underlying problem. Still, I understand the leftist viewpoint even if I do not approve of it. To be fair, I do not approve of the extreme right-wing positions either. My “epiphany” tends to make me a political moderate since I know that the dogmatic positions and simplified assumptions of both the left and the right cannot be supported logically given the true complexity of human behavior.

12 COMMENTS