Back on December 9, montgomeryadvertiser.com columnist Josh Moon responded to a spate of local gun violence. “The one common thread tying them all together is guns . . . There is no question that guns are a problem. They do, in fact, kill people. This is where most would expect a diatribe on banning guns. However, while I wouldn’t mind at all living in a world in which only the cops had firearms, that’s a fantasy that will never come true. Guns aren’t going anywhere, so the most productive thing we can do is figure out a way in which we can all live with them.” Far be it for me to suggest that a pro-gun control media dude in the heart of Dixie should keep firearms off his editorial agenda. ‘Cause if he did, we’d be denied a primo example of what happens when cultures collide . . .

If you want a gun, there should be at least a week-long training course. Every night for a week, you’d have to spend an hour learning gun safety rules and the gun laws of this state. At the end of that training, a test would be administered by a government official — just like a driving test.

Because I’d like someone to verify that you know how to work the safety on a variety of weapons, that you know the proper way to carry a gun and that you know the proper technique for firing one. And most importantly, I want to know that you’re not crazy mad, or just plain crazy, and looking for a quick and permanent end to an argument or a relationship . . .

There’s no reason that I should be able to stroll into Walmart and buy a box of ammo with my bread and tires — without anyone ever writing down anything. For goodness sakes, I have to all but give a urine sample to buy a box of sinus medication behind the pharmacy counter. It should be required to at least to have a name and address entered into a computer to get bullets.

Because if someone convicted of a violent crime can’t own a gun, that person shouldn’t be buying bullets, either.

Look! It’s a lead balloon! Who’d want one of those? Not many people living in The Yellowhammer State. As you might imagine the comments section underneath the post took the writer to task for his suggestions. And how. Here’s one of dozens of residents who considered Mr. Moon a lunatic:

Moon is a liberal idiot. The one common thread tying vehicle accidents is vehicles. There must be a way to regulate liquid fuel. There is no reason someone should be able to buy their groceries at Wal-Mart and then gas up their car without the proper ID and license. Motor vehicles cause more deaths and injuries than firearms. They use vast amounts of hospital ER resorces that could be used to find a cure for the common cold. Or to give more medical care to poor illegals. Swim suits. Oh my God. They let a person to be exposed to too many UV rays. Do people have a RIGHT to be overexposed? 🙂

Like that. And those are the ones that weren’t deleted. Moon felt so much heat from the flamers he felt obliged to follow Churchill’s dictum “When you’re going through hell keep going.” Or George M. Cohan’s adage “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Or simply accepted his liberal BFF’s attaboys and decided to rub salt into the wound.

A new column! With carefully selected emails with which Moon can fight his rearguard action. When one antagonist points out that private training is preferable to government anything, Moon reveals his true stripes.

This is an area where I seem to differ from a lot of people these days. I simply don’t have a deeply rooted mistrust of our government. In fact, I think our government typically does a pretty decent job. Yes, it’s big and clunky and suffers from all the inherent problems that go along with that, but it’s most often very well intentioned. Many of the problems that do plague our government come from others taking advantage of it. So, with that said, I have to disagree. I think our government is in the best position to institute such a program, and I think you run into many more problems if you’re dealing with private companies — such as who’s going to monitor those companies and who’s going to set standards? The government?

So even when you shouldn’t involve the government you should. How much tax-lovin’ liberalism can you take? Wait! Don’t answer! There’s more!

It seems many of the people committing these crimes have very little respect for human life. That has to come from a lack of education and guidance. We can sugarcoat it all we like, or pretend as though it’s not our problem to solve, but we’re doing a pretty poor job in some areas making sure a lot of kids have a shot at a decent life. Certainly, the first criticism in this equation goes to the parents, because they stink. But we can’t continue to run from these kids, leaving them in underfunded schools and in unmonitored situations to fend for themselves. Because we see the results. At best, they’re unemployable. At worst, well, we’ve seen the worst.

So far so bleeding heart. And all very civilized with it. But Moon can’t resist getting nasty and taking a parting shot at his pro-gun rights antagonists. Addressing the issue of guns as protection against tyranny, Moon uses the Albright defense, and then kicks his readers in the teeth.

You’re not scaring away the big, bad government with your .38. If Uncle Sam wants to come in and take your stuff, there’s not much you can do about it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for gun ownership, and again, I’m not advocating that they be banned. But I don’t think this amendment gives you the right to buy any kind of gun, to forego training programs or to refuse to show ID when purchasing ammo. And I also don’t think it absolves the people who have pushed to make gun buying easier of some responsibility for the mess we’re in.

Yeah, it’s their fault. Let the Moon-bashing begin. Saying that, commentator TimothyPeace reflects my own, less peevish take.

Both liberals and conservatives aspire to a utopian state.

The difference is…

Conservatives realize this can only be achieved through God’s grace and know that their greatest earthly existence will come through individual freedom and self determination.

Liberals, clouded by their arrogance, actually believe the 6 billion of us can make utopia on our own.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

14 COMMENTS

  1. One of the problems with using the “Liberal/Conservative” labels is that they’re generic and nonspecific. People like Moon are not “liberals” in the sense that they’re utopians. I say this because IMO most staunch gun control advocates like Moon are not motivated by utopian visions (i.e., let’s just take the guns away, put sensitive, caring people in charge, and then we’ll have our perfect world.) Most of the gun control advocates I know advocate gun control because of the kind of people they see as gun owners – unenlightened, uneducated, politically retarded flag-waving rednecks.

    IOW, it’s not a gun issue, it’s a class issue. It’s the same animus that motivates many of the battles over public land use – those who see themselves as “enlightened” and environmentally sensitive, think it’s important to close public lands to what they see as an invasion by blue-collar yahoos with dirt bikes, ATVs and Jeeps, even if it’s a parcel of land they’re unlikely to ever see.

  2. Well PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Some of them use guns, others use knives, bats, pipes,clubs,rocks,blah,blah,blah, and YES some even use CARS. Now there are others who will strangle you to death or beat and kick you to death. (I guess we should ban that deadly footwear, along with forks and spoons and CARS). Well I shouldn’t pick on cars, let’s ban all motor vehicles and bikes and what the hell let’s just ban everything.

  3. Hey, great article. I’m new to guns and am perusing various gun blogs and gun websites. For most of my life, I’ve been pretty liberal, but as I’ve gone up in income bracket (and perhaps up in my cynicism after seeing so much abuse of our tax money by welfare abusers and uninsured patients), I find myself become a little more conservative, especially in gun control. Hey, I should have the right to defend myself and shoot any SOB who breaks into my home and means to cause my family harm.

    I do, however, see the point of the above, even though I may not completely agree with it. It is a little elitist, but I really don’t think people who haven’t trained in firearms should be able to have them. Whenever I read noob questions on gun forums about various defense scenarios, I see a lot of “get more training” responses from people who obviously think the question-asker is not mentally ready to conceal-carry.

    I mean, this website posts “irresponsible gun owner of the day” examples and I can’t fully understand how some of these people find themselves in these scenarios. I don’t think EVERYONE has the right to bear arms philosophically. I think competent, responsible people, and only those people, should have the right. Using the second amendment as a proof that everyone should be able to have guns is like using the Bible as proof that the world was created in 7 days, or whatever the number is.

    Of course this begs the questions, who determines who is competent and responsible? But I’m not really addressing that. I’m just saying I see where that dude is coming from.

    Over on one of the concealed weapons permit websites, each new member of the CCW-toting community is inducted proudly. I like the idea that if I were to obtain a CCW, I believe myself to be a more responsible member of society than someone who doesn’t have one. After all, I’ve taken the legal and necessary steps to obtain a CCW and I think I’m a little smarter than criminals (maybe).

    I’m not a writer, so I’m not sure I’m making my point very clearly, so bear with me.

    • Welcome to TTAG. I appreciate your moderate POV. I don’t agree with it, but we encourage any and all perspectives on guns, gun control and the supremacy of the 1911. What firearm(s) do you have?

    • Welcome QL to the world of “Personal Responsibility”!
      I’d like to address a few of your point, to help you understand the subject of gun ownership a little better.
      Simple “Personal Responsibility” answers many of the points you raised.
      “Hey, I should have the right to defend myself and shoot any SOB who breaks into my home and means to cause my family harm.”

      If the worst should happen: How could this SOB have AVOIDED being shot by you?
      Don’t violate the law. (This was HIS failure of “Personal Responsibility”.)
      Some, who don’t believe in “Personal Responsibility” (Liberals for example) would say: “You should call the POLICE!”
      And what will those Second Responders bring at that call? GUNS! (No, the police are not “First Responders”; the victim of the crime was already there, the victim is the First Responder, whether that response is to stop the crime or soil themselves.)
      Here’s the big question everyone who dislikes guns should be asked: Why should a cop, risk his Life to save something, of such little value, that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

      Now here’s the real shocker to many newbies to the World of “Personal Responsibility”:
      THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS.
      Here’s a few examples of what the courts have repeatedly ruled:
      Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

      Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

      Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

      “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

      This means that if you want protection from violent crime; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to take “Personal Responsibility” to provide it.

      “It is a little elitist, but I really don’t think people who haven’t trained in firearms should be able to have them.”

      Criminals tend to be less intelligent and less educated.
      Do you believe, that people who have failed to reached a certain level of education or have a certain I.Q., should be able to be stopped and search or have their homes search without a warrant or “probable cause”? Of course not.

      The answer about “people who haven’t trained in firearms” is again: “Personal Responsibility”.
      The person should NOT be prevented from excising their Right as an American citizen; they SHOULD BE held responsible for the results of their ACTIONS.
      Just as you CAN “yell ‘FIRE!’” in a crowded theater; as part of a play or if there is indeed a fire.
      Otherwise, you CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for the harm you CAUSE by your ACTION.

      “Whenever I read noob questions on gun forums about various defense scenarios, I see a lot of “get more training” responses from people who obviously think the question-asker is not mentally ready to conceal-carry.”

      Very, very few people truly have “all the training they need”. (Especially law enforcement officers; fortunately they rarely encounter a situation where they NEED a gun.)
      Anytime the best results isn’t achieved “more training” MAY have made for a better outcome.
      Had one or more of the dinner at the “Luby’s Massacre” been armed, even by a poorly trained individual, many lives may have been saved. (At the very first, minor armed encounter, George Hennard committed suicide.) How well trained was the vice-principal of Pearl High School, when he stopped a Columbine-like slaughter with his gun? Don’t know; no shot was fired, but the murderer was stopped. How well trained were Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, the ARMED students who stopped the Appalachian School of Law murderer a few years eairlier and a hundred miles from the Virginia Tech massacre? Don’t know; no shot was fired, but the murderer was stopped. My point? In an overwhelming number of incidents of criminal violence, a gun stops the violent crime without a shot ever being fired (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-marine-attacked-teens-little-focke20101228,0,1968167.story)

      “I don’t think EVERYONE has the right to bear arms philosophically.”

      Here’s what Thomas Jefferson thought:
      “We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; THAT IT IS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO BE AT ALL TIMES ARMED” (emphasis mine)

      “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

      I believe EVERYONE you see walking our streets as a freeman, should be able to do so armed.

      “OH! But what about convicted FELONS and CRAZIES?!”

      If they are a menace to society, they shouldn’t be walking out streets as a freeman; they should be LOCKED-UP until such time as they were no longer a menace to society.

      Again, Welcome to the sometimes scarey world of Personal Responsibility.

    • You know, if people just followed the basic rules of firearms safety, it would be all the “training” they ever needed to be “safe” handling a gun. Every gun is always loaded. Don’t point your gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy. Be sure of your target and what’s behind your target. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot and so on.

      There’s not a lot more that a person needs to know to be “safe” with a gun. And though I generally oppose almost any kind of gun regulation, I could support a law that said new gun purchasers must read a card with these safety rules. I’d even be willing to have them sign a statement that they’ve read the rules and understand them.

      And you’re done.

      No mandatory classes. No government oversight. The “education” has been accomplished. The student has been informed of pretty much all they need to be safe with a firearms and certified that they understand the safety rules.

      The truth is, the government does most things poorly. Mandatory training is just another expensive bureaucracy and infringement on rights waiting to happen. And such training is unnecessary in most cases. The majority of people who buy guns had parents or other relatives who owned guns, and the more effective training is not a week in a class conducted by federally-approved trough-feeders, but over a period of years with someone who’s going to teach you one-on-one. Of course, you’ll learn firearms safety in the first 10 minutes. After that there is a HUGE amount of information to learn with regard to the many other aspects of firearms ownership and use… which is the part that takes years.

    • Do you think CRIMINALS need training on their weapons? The CRIMINAL never needs anything, not training, not ammo, not even guns, for all can be stolen. The only ones affected by “Gun Laws” are all LAW ABIDING citizens. There are CRIMINAL Politicians writing Gun Laws, the reason Liberals are in Power iS because they’re criminals, they just haven’t been caught or found out,YET.

  4. Hk usp 40 compact, hk p2000sk in 40, and a kahr pm9. I think I’m holding there for a while but I look longingly at ultra-carry Kimbers to round out the caliber collection.

  5. “I wouldn’t mind at all living in a world in which only the cops had firearms[.]”

    Obviously Mr. Moon is not a very deep thinker.

    If criminals had no guns, why would the cops need them? The quote reveals a disturbing, ingrained sheep-like subservience to authority. People with this mindset cannot be taken seriously without risking real danger to one’s own liberty.

    I submit that Mr. Moon should be required to pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. That right is far too dangerous to be exercised by anyone without the proper training.

    • “I wouldn’t mind at all living in a world in which only the cops had firearms[.]”

      “Obviously Mr. Moon is not a very deep thinker.”

      You are right.
      Mexico is such a “Gun-Free” utopia.
      How’s that workin’ out for them?

  6. Whenever confronting liberals, it’s always best to use an argument from one of their own to counter the nonsense. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”
    Since the definition of “infringed” remains the same today as in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, one wonders exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” is beyond their comprehension?

  8. As a matter of fact, my CHL class was about seven hours long. We just did it in one day instead of seven. Of course, when I took that class I had owned and used firearms for over fifty years, including three years in the Army. I don’t know of any reputable gunner who doesn’t advocate regular practice and constant adherance to the rules of safety.
    I buy my ammunition from various stores both local and online. Most online stores require some sort of proof that I am old enough to buy from them; the in-person store clerks can look at my old face and know. I long ago decided that if any store asked me to register to buy ammunition, I would turn and walk out. That I am old enough is an acceptable question. Who I am is not.

Comments are closed.