Email
PrintAn M4 behind every door?
Editorial
Mike Thompson, who has represented us well in Congress since 1999, and who was sworn into his new seat in the Fifth Congressional District Jan. 3, will be hosting a public forum on gun violence prevention at the Board of Supervisors meeting room in Santa Rosa on Thursday at 6:30 p.m.
We hope he gets a healthy turn out, and we hope that it’s respectful, unlike a town hall meeting on health-care reform he hosted in Napa in 2009 that was disrupted by organized Tea Party protesters who saw a socialist plot in the effort to make American medicine more universally available.
If health-care reform stirs people’s passions, gun control sometimes drives opinion off a rhetorical cliff. Witness the following statements from Larry Hunter, founder of Revolution PAC and a former White House policy advisor to President Reagan, political advisor to Jack Kemp and former vice president and chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
“Defend your gun rights like your life depends on it, because it does.” Hunter makes that statement not just because he believes gun ownership is essential to protect house and hearth, or in order to form a militia against foreign invaders. No, Hunter believes our own government may very well come for us in the dark of night.
The Second Amendment, he writes in a Revolution PAC email, “was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door – a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.” (The emphasis is his.)
Hunter looks to privately-owned guns as “a deterrent against government tyranny … Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.”
Without private guns, Hunter believes, “A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.”
The M4 carbine Hunter would like us to keep behind our door is a fully-automatic, military assault weapon capable of firing more than 700 rounds per minute. It comes standard with a 30-round clip.
The primary murder weapon at Sandy Hook elementary school was a semi-automatic “civilian” version of the M4 with several 30-round magazines that could each be emptied in less than 10 seconds.
Since Hunter seems less concerned about tragedies like Sandy Hook than he does that Barack Obama is intent on disarming private Americans so he can take over the country, we’re not sure he has much to contribute to a national conversation about guns.
But we do hope that reasonable and responsible gun owners join the conversation with Thompson on Thursday, because we will never arrive at rational gun policies without them.
Thompson, who was appointed by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to chair a Congressional task force on reducing and preventing gun violence, is a gun owner, a hunter and a Vietnam combat veteran. We think he is an ideal choice to lead a conversation this nation is literally dying to have.
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Where does one plan on getting said weapon? Are you advocating the local citizenry shouud arm themselves with automatic weapons.
700 rounds per minute...if it's the same carbine I'm thinking of it will probably jam at least 10 times before emptying the clip.
How many gun laws do we have on the books now?
You should have enough common sense to know that psychos will find a way to perpetrate their evils deeds despite all the laws in the world.
Every law on the book is designed to stop that type
of behavior but those activities happen anyway. This
public forum is going to be nothing more then a "Bash
Guns" love fest.
At the risk of stating the obvious, & however one feels about gun-control, Hunter's thinking suggests a mind so divorced from reality that, were mental health checks imposed as a condition of gun ownership, he & his might have theirs confiscated, and each be given a glass of warm milk.
Assuming (irrationally) that his fears are remotely justified, his justification for needing binders full of M-4's to defend against "rogue gov't" suggests a faiiure to grasp that this is 2013, not 1776 when gov't and citizens were equally matched in the musketry of the day. Thanks (or not) to 200+ years of wars and technological advances - taxpayer-supported by Hunter et al - gov't' capability for defense or suppression is somewhat more advanced.
The most well-stocked modern home arsenal is no match for capacities that today's gov't, including local police, has at its disposal. Instead of Redcoats advancing10 abreast armed with Brown Bess's & singing 'God Save The Queen,' Hunter et al would face armored vehicles, SWAT teams, attack helicopters, electronic measures/countermeasures, high-explosives, RPG's, Seal Teams Six, flame throwers, tear gas, air-strikes and and drone strikes, all raining down on their imaginary little-boy Forts in the Forest.
Think Waco, Texas and Osama Bin Laden. Think every gun-wielding hostage-taker whose mind is so blown away by confrontation with overwhelming gov't firepower that he usually blows it away himself. Think Syria where, but for military desertions and influx of high-capacity arms from foreign sympathizers, 10's of thousands of rebels would have long-ago been buried alongside the 60,000 already dead.
If Hunter's (longed-for?) Doomsday Battle Against Tyrannical Government ever came to pass, his remains & those of his fellow "patriots" could be blotted up with a single copy of the 2nd Amendment & tossed in the trash.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a rational person would understand that.
One wonders how many citizens with thoughtful comments and suggestions on the subject of gun-control will stay away from Congressman Thompson's public forum on Thursday, out of concern that one of our local gun-nuts will decide that such a public gathering presents a perfect opportunity to make the news?
Unfortunately, neither the editorial nor the accompanying front-page story mention anything about security or screening that will be provided to assure the safety of those attending. Perhaps the Congressman, a confessed hunter and gun expert, doesn't share such concerns, notwithstanding the subject matter, the widespread availability of guns and the events that caused him to hold this meeting.
Bob..Of course the public would not stand a chance
against our current government. But!!...The point
remains...The foundation of the 2nd Amnd was
established to allow citizens to bear arms in case
our government got tyranical. In other words...the
government is not the only ones to have guns.
Regarding the meeting on Thursday. Do you think
we will be told by the media if a bunch of
disruptive Leftists get out of line? Your worried
about a gunman causing havoc but I think it more
likely the Lefty's will create problems that the
Press will not report.
Before you think, "nobody wants to take your guns
away" you better think otherwise. Since the
Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment the next
approach the Left will use is the growing movement
to appeal it. Try these.
http://www.infowars.com/vanity-fair-lets-repeal-the-second-amendment/
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/12/michael_moore_after_nra_press.html
http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/it-time-repeal-second-amendment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-falzon/second-amendment_b_2330496.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/des-moines-columnist-calls-for-repeal-of-second-amendment-death-of-gun-owners
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20121222/OPINION/312220047/Repeal-Second-Amendment-Guns-not-sacred-children-are?nclick_check=1
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-23/news/bs-ed-shooting-rights-20121223_1_second-amendment-strict-gun-possession-laws-people
So...you think that no one wants to take your guns away?? Think
again!!
Health care reform has caused my insurance rates to go up dramatically when the stated purpose was to make it more affordable.
If gun law reform is supposed to make us more safe, I am already doubtful that that will be the outcome.
Why hasn't the IT editorialized the turnout and commentary from Mike Thompson's "hearing" on gun control?
Is it because it was overwhelmingly attended by the pro 2nd amendment folks in our community?