Jacob Sullum, also a journalist based in Dallas and a friend whom I embarrassed with my entry-level poker playing at a game he hosts, talks about Jimmy Carter‘s latest inanity regarding my second favorite subject. Here’s a taste:
In a New York Times op-ed piece, former President Jimmy Carter presents revival of the federal “assault weapon” ban, which President Obama supports, as a no-brainer, since the guns that were covered by the expired 1994 law are “designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.” Evidently, if you aim one of these firearms at a home intruder, a prairie dog, or a paper target, instead of firing a bullet it harmlessly unfurls a little flag that says “Bang!” Having polled himself and his hunting buddies, Carter reports that “none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.”
Trey is on fire…post, baby, post!
This op-ed is coming from the idiot that allowed 3rd world dictator Fidel Castro to pull the wool over his eyes.
Jimmah should stick to Habitat for Humanity photo ops, it’s about the only venture he didn’t manage to screw up.
Jimmy’s a confirmed hunter. Not some Jimmy-Come-Lately. And FYI, per his comments re: assault weapons, It’s also a POV supported by most police but picky picky.
I’m just relieved to finally find a thread here about guns.
It’s not a POV supported by most police. Your statement is false. It is supported by police CHIEFS and upper echelons of police organizations, but not by actual cops.
Carter knows the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, its about self defense. Who’s Jimmy Carter and his traveling band of Socialists to decide what I should want or need? I don’t need a semi auto AK 47 for hunting, but it sure would come in handy to defend my family in the aftermath of a Hurricane Katrina scenario.
Rawlins, despite what you have read in an International Chiefs of Police newsletter, most cops certainly do not support Carter’s POV of “assault weapons.â€
Well, I stopped counting the number of times I had a gun in my face or gut, most particularly (but not limited to) in my latter 20s when backpacking globally. (Never mind having been a couple of blocks away when Kennedy was killed.) And I am almost certain that any of those handguns could have killed me very efficiently. The process and technology did not require ultra efficiency from my vantage. It seemed real simple. Barrel in temple or upper left chest. Pull trigger. But whatever …….
As for ‘any debate’ re: guns and gun laws, I learned 40-plus years ago that is a waste of my time. But the irony is from my view; that I was never in a war or a soldier. Yet I have both witnessed murders and been very nearly killed by gun weilding dudes more times than I can count or you’d believe. One would think it’s an emotion issue for me. It is the reverse. And the result was twofold: I’m a 7th generation Texas raised by parents who grew up on ranches so rest assured I could pick off a peanut on a squirrel’s nose. But I neither want a gun at this point in my life nor do I fear those who have them.
Quick Time Out:
I know Bear and Rawlins personally, and I know they can each get passionate about this issue.
I know both of you come to your positions earnestly and in good faith. I hope you continue the back and forth debate, but — though I probably don’t have to I am cognizant it can get heated — I’m going to ask you each to respect each other and keep it above the belt. (I’m especially looking at you, my friend Bear.)
Speak your piece, but I’m just requesting it stay nice. You two are both great guys. You’d get along like a house on fire if you ever met in real life.
So, time out over — carry on.
Trey. I’m not ‘passionate’ about this issue at all. In fact the reverse.
I was hoping that was conveyed in my above post. The two things guananteed to bore me most are porn and guns. To each his own. You want emotion from me? Take me to a Colombian salsa dance with a great band or any forest.
Most of the people who discuss guns pro or con have zero experience in real terms with having been on the receiving end of a barrel literally or figuratively. I thought my last post was possbly interesting in that I have neither a desire for nor a fear of guns. And considering what I have seen and experienced firsthand (vs most others who feel ‘passionately’ about guns and gun laws) I thought it might inform some random reader to see how that can either make one a victim or, in my case ultimately, the reverse. The true power in life as I have come to see it is learning to be fearless. That’s the reward I have earned for being scared to death more than once.
Rawlins — I didn’t mean to mischaracterize you, or suggest you would get overheated.
I should have said “it’s an issue that people get passionate about” and left it at that. And as I noted, I probably didn’t have to say anything at all since you’re both gentlemen in every sense of the word, but I’d hate for two real life friends of mine to get crosswise by accident.
‘
So, sorry if that came across wrong in execution, but the intent was benign. Just trying to keep the tone at the same great level it’s been since comments got really busy.
And yes, Rawlins, I’d love to go salsa dancing with you. But you have to lead.
“Most of the people who discuss guns pro or con have zero experience in real terms with having been on the receiving end of a barrel literally or figuratively.”
Rawlins I have experience in “real terms†regarding firearms, having been on both ends of the gun; I have no issue with Americans that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, just as we’re practicing our 1st Amendment rights here on Trey’s blog.