TTAG reader Dale clocked theatlantic.com‘s Guns for Hunting People Are Different: Legislation Should Reflect That and asked “So now we’re hunting people?” His email drew our attention to this excerpt: “In most states, it is illegal to hunt animals or birds with more than six rounds in a rifle or three in a shotgun. Why? Because if you can’t kill within those limits you need remedial marksmanship (of the sort NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. La Pierre might require to bring reportedly poor marksmanship up to snuff).”
Dale begs to differ. “Um, no, the idea is to give some of the game a chance to get away so that it can replenish. And it just gets worse from there.” Allow me….
Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction. We shouldn’t be trying to make it safe to have them on the street. It’s too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.
Like most gun grabbers, Charles R. Eisendrath doesn’t understand that a weapon of mass destruction is, by definition, indiscriminate. A firearm — any firearm — s an aimed weapon. A person with a gun can inflict tremendous carnage, they can “spray and pray,” but a firearm is not in the same class as a bomb or chemical weapon.
At the same time, any weapon can be, by its nature, a “homicide weapon.” Also noting that any solid object can become a weapon (e.g. a table lamp, car, baseball bat, beer bottle).
As for restricting AR ownership to entities “licensed to hunt humans” I don’t think that means what Eisendrath thinks it means. Yet. Thankfully. In any case, Eisendrath needs to spend a little time thinking about how modern police states arise and what happens to disarmed civilians’ life, liberty and pursuit of happiness during its reign.
Despite owning firearms, Einsendrath is clueless about why other folks do so. Which leads to some fairly convoluted logic (or a total lack thereof).
Do I favor handguns’ remaining legal? Yes, except for the kind that are really assault rifles without stocks. For one thing, the huge sales boom in pistols represents a whole nation’s understandable lunge for self-defense, largely against bad guys with the assault weapons we hear about all to often. For that reason, keeping the option open for handguns, at least for now, may make it easier to eliminate assault rifles. It also weakens the argument that by eliminating civilian war weapons we would disarm law-abiders to the advantage of outlaws. We should start with the main threat. When people feel less fearful, they may buy fewer pistols, too.
How great is that? An understandable lunge for self-defense that shouldn’t be realized with the purchase of one of the most effective weapons of self-defense ever created by hand of man? What is Eisendrath smoking?
More to the point, why did The Atlantic publish this tripe? Perhaps it’s because they don’t know any better. Or perhaps it’s because they think they do.
Eisendrath is Jewish, his inchoate subcontextual drivel is part of the study I am writing about Jewish Americans predispostion against firearms in general.
I think this is a real tendency (American Jews don’t tend to own guns), but there are exceptions, such as the members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org). Also, Jews who’ve lived in Israel are much more likely to support gun ownership.
Israel actually has quite onerous gun laws, including registration, so I am unsure where your posit comes from.
Saul – I’d love to read your study when it is finished. It has always confused me why many of my Jewish friends and associates are anti-gun, especially when we discuss the holocaust and what happened before it, et al.
Please let all of us know when your material is available- thanks
Because they are book smart life stupid assholes.I was raised Jewish and while my father was liberal,he also disliked gun control and could shoot really well-he taught me when I was about 10.Like almost everyone in his generation in his family he was a WW2 veteran-I am a veteran of Vietnam.I don’t suffer fools lightly
Something like that has already been written. Thanks to someone on here for posting this site. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm
BTW this excellent article just doesn’t apply to jews.
I’ve read a lot of stuff on the JPFO site, but I hadn’t come across that before. Thanks for posting the link.
“largely against bad guys with the assault weapons we hear about all to often”
If by “bad guys” he means “government employees”, then he is correct.
That was painful to read. If they want to ban anything they should ban publishing articles from people that know nothing about which that they report on. But then that would restrict the holy grail first amendment which Obama is doing anyways with the espionage act. But thats totally cool because you know he is a democrat and they are always looking out for us…(sarcasm)
What do the 100 year old Espionage Act and the 1st amendment have to do with each other?
….Not sure if serious <.<
It can be misapplied to muzzle the press.
Excellent question……
That’s the rationale/justification that this Administration has used to support the collection and snooping on the AP, the de facto restriction of 1A.
“largely against bad guys with the assault weapons we hear about all to often”
This is where you have to use Hanlon’s Razor (or Napoleon’s, or whomever’s) to try to decide if this is stupidity or malice. Statistically, all murders are committed with handguns, basically none with assault rifles. So in our defense, he wants to let the handguns flow and ban the ARs? I guess logic and reason were kicked out of public schools a lot longer ago than I thought.
Or he’s a handmaiden of the police state, taking the opportunity to cheerlead for disarming the resistance. Like so many other conspiracy theories, a year or two ago I’d have dismissed that one out of hand. Now…
Heinlein’s
You should check out his novel The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. It’s a retelling of the American Revolution and a Libertarian Manifesto in a sciene fiction candy coating.
Actually in thinking about it, the linked article’s author is what the character Mannie O’kelly-Davis would have called “a yammerhead”.
+1000, cobber!
There’s some debate about who really came up with “attribute not to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. It certainly sounds like Heinlein, but it’s hard to believe nobody came up with it earlier.
Nonetheless, a person could do worse than spend a few months with RAH’s complete collection, or maybe just the Lazarus Long stories.
Heinlein’s work is extraordinary; but his book “Starship Troopers”( the movie totally sucks)’ is one book that should be required reading.
It’s essential message is of taking personal responsibility for protecting ones culture.
I keep asking myself if these people are for real? Unfortunately they are for real. Can this Guy fit any more inflammatory language into his illogical article? The only cops/military should have guns meme shows that these people are unable to think critically about a subject.
I am sad to see this come from the Atlantic. Though their editorial position is largely anti-2A, they did a fairly good job of presenting our side.
Among others:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-us-already-had-a-conversation-about-guns-and-the-pro-side-won/266335/
On balance, I find them to be one of the better media outlet for covering multiple sides of an issue. This article fell well short of their usual standards.
Shameful.
To be fair, the Atlantic has published some thoughtful gun writing by Jeffrey Goldberg and Adam Winkler. But this article was absolute drivel. The quality was representative of something I would have expected to turn up in the comments sections. If they wanted to even out their coverage, they could have done much better.
Every time I read stuff like this, my blood starts to boil. It reminds me of what we’re up against.
The writing reminds me of college. With those kids who believe they are a champion of some position that they have not fully thought out or explored. Their writing is from a position of total ignorance and reflects in their ranting articles.
Ah, yes. I remember those guys.
When most people think about hunting they think in terms of bagging a deer. The “truth about deer hunting” is pretty much one round and done. So you don’t need a 30 round magazine to hunt deer. But hunting is not just about deer. There are other kinds of hunting where you need a semiautomatic varmint rifle to effectively deal with pests and predators. This is lost on our urbanized culture that does not see the wild kingdom as destructive to crops and domestic animals. You don’t go about eradicating gophers, groundhogs, feral pigs and coyotes with a bolt action rifle with a five round capacity. Sure you can get one or maybe two if you are really good but that is not a rate that will reduce the populace to acceptable levels. I think we can do a better a job in educating the public that there are more kinds of hunting than deer and waterfowl.
Not to mention some of these nuisance animals are dangerous to the hunter. I would be very hesistant to hunt feral pigs with a bolt action rifle.
Pulatso, +1 from me. Back in the good-old-days, I used to hunt feral pigs in the outback with a SKS that used AK magazines. When dealing with a mob of 10 or more at a waterhole, I was thankful for the 30-round magazines. And the bayonet was used for coup-de-grace on the ones that weren’t killed.
Now I use a No4 Lee Enfield with several spare magazines in my pockets, and a No9 bayonet on the end of the rifle. I was using a M48 Yugo Mauser with a scout scope but the 5 round magazine started to make be feel a bit nervous, even with the strip reloads.
I don’t know which is more disturbing – his inability to understand the difference between hunting and self-defense, or his contention that the police are “licensed to hunt humans”.
Criminals AKA “bad guys” already hunt humans, regardless of the weapons available to them. Or the silly notion of licenses. (ha!)
Regular people (“the hunted”) deserve the right to choose to protect themselves, including the ability to arm themselves with the same weapons as those that might prey on them. Yep.
I love how these “Thinkers” think they know so much…
They extrapolate opinion based on no concept of jurisdictional desisions. It is as if their head is so far up the cereal box looking for the prize, they fail to realize that the prize is no longer in the empty box & the toy has been given to the “Good” kid.
Does anyone not read anymore?
FFS, why does it always come back to hunting and marksmanship for gun grabbers when all other logicless emotional avenues have been exhausted
I do believe it is what is commonly referred to as “bait and switch”. The goal is perfected victimhood for the populace, but you can’t sell that, so you have to sell safety, common sense, and for the children. I believe most of these paid word spewers know this and honestly think they are being clever with their “purpose of guns and 2A” canard.
After reading this, ” I award you no points” came to mind.
Just got censored. Gods know why. Guess it’ll post in a hour or two.
I will say this about hunting: it’s the criminals hunting the good guys, and it always amazes me that these fools wish to put the American people in the same position as a de-clawed cat thrown into a yard full of hungry dogs.
Ugh! Yuck! Bleah!
They want to make us a gun free utopia like the UK!
Or Australia….
Simon Phoenix
“…keeping the option open for handguns, AT LEAST FOR NOW…”
I believe that little bit sums up the strategy.
I find this troubling.
“Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction. We shouldn’t be trying to make it safe to have them on the street. It’s too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.”
Does Mr. Charles R. Eisendrath actually believe that there are people in the law enforcement and military community that are licensed to “hunt humans”?
Think about that for a minute.
Then it gets even better.
“Cities, towns, and counties across the country have experimented with weaponry turn-ins, with varying rewards and degrees of success…”
Which is to say, Zero success in preventing crime as has been documented ad-nausea-um.
“…Los Angeles, for example, offered $150 for assault rifles, $100 for handguns, and $50 for everything else. A total 2,037 weapons including 75 assault rifles and two rocket launchers (yes, rocket launchers) went out of circulation.”
Oh, fantastic, he’s repeating that absolute BS about the Rocket Launchers. These were inert Tubes. No projectiles. Nothing sensational and inaccurate here.
“…But this piecemeal, community-based approach is too slow to protect the victims of the next Newtown,”
Ya think? Asshat.
“…and too small to entice the likes of Mr. C. The gun lobby’s proposal to put armed guards in all our schools would cost about $3 billion.”
Not necessarily. How about detailing one officer from a local PD to be on school grounds daily as part of their patrol schedule? Instead of sitting around running speed traps to ticket people doing 12mph over the limit, they could be sitting at the school parking lot. But I digress.
Wow, it still amazes me how quickly appeals of “If it saves even one life” evaporate when someone goes digging in their pocket. It shouldn’t, but it does.
” We should start with the main threat. ”
Agreed, and then work our way down.
1. Bad guys with guns.
2. Abusive significant others with guns(not just accused)
3. Mentally ill with guns.
4. Bad Cops with guns.
5. Ignorant Politicians
6. Ignorant journalists
…
100. ?
…
992. People with a bad attitude
993. Kentucky Long rifles
994. Bolt action rifles
995. Revolvers
996. Semi-auto pistols
997. Semi-auto rifles
998. Semi-auto rifles in my safe
999. Law abiding gun owners exercising 2A rights.
By the time we hit # 6, we’re probaly good.
But let me know how we’re doing when we have worked our way down to 100.
“We should start with the main threat.”
I was thinking, in Eisendrath’s case, that must mean banning stupidity like his, but of course, and unfortunately, that too would be unconstitutional.
Well certainly, when you are hunting people you need the proper weapon & tags for the game warden. The scarry thing is this guys probably driving a car when he shouldn’t be allowed to walk in public, Randy
Yet another old Fudd who was born before the invention of plastic and thinks anything new is “witchcraft”. Pay him no mind, he’ll die of natural causes soon enough.
Eisendrath seems like it should be a location in Middle Earth. Random thought.
I can’t rag too much since my last name ain’t exactly from around here, either.
“Also noting that any solid object can become a weapon…”
Don’t forget hands and feet and such. We’ve all seen the stats showing that at least twice as many people are murdered every year by an unarmed attacker just using what god gave them than by rifles of ANY kind.
“We should start with the main threat.”
Directly related to what I said above. Somehow “assault rifles” are the “main threat,” despite the fact that almost nobody is murdered by them. Probably less than 1% of firearms homicides are committed with long guns that would be deemed to be “assault rifles.” The quote above just proves, without any doubt, the complete and total lack of basis in any rational thought or reasoning inherent in the minds of the gun grabber ilk.
“Licensed to hunt Humans?” Go find and read the old Social Science Fiction Story ” The Tens Club”.
Dont forget that these people also think Heller means that they can ban everything except ONE gun and so long as you can have that, they’re not infringing the 2A. Also, god do i hate it when these assholes start off with “I own a gun…”, then go on about how we need to ban everything. Saying you own a gun then going on endlessly talking about banning pretty much all firearms, is like saying “I have black friends…” then saying something horribly racist.
” It’s too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.”
B-b-but…. aren’t the ones licensed to hunt humans SPECIFICALLY LE and military?
This guy has feathers for brains.
“keeping the option open, AT LEAST FOR NOW” and “we should START with the main threat”. Kind of tells you what this evil libtard is thinking, huh.
We’re not going to win this war until we stop apologizing to our domestic blood enemies. Our ‘weapons’ are weapons of war.
The Second Amendment, as the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an acknowledgement of our natural born rights, not a granting. The entire Bill of Rights is about keeping the governments in their place. The Second Amendment is about the common person’s right to own weapons of war so that we can keep the governments in their place by keeping the ‘monopoly on force’ in the hands of the people where it belongs, as in ‘We the people.’ Remember that? It will not be infringed any further and the ‘gun laws’ in existence will be repealed. End of discussion.
Guns don’t kill, governments do. Gun free zones are the problem, they allow armed criminals to kill. Arm the teachers, the administrators and the parents. Don’t allow the “Liberal”(commie) trash who control the so-called educational system to teach mindless pacifism that is ensconced in their arrogance of false civility.
If we have violent criminals in prison who have been convicted of a crime and can’t be trusted with weapons why is the govt. turning them back out on the street? So they can point at them and say “See, the sheeple can’t be trusted with guns.” The ‘crime’ argument is a red herring.
Time to repeal all of the ‘gun laws’ including GCA ‘68 and the NFA; Shut down the evil BATF Nazis and try them for treason, and murder where appropriate and distribute their retirement funds among their victims; Then enforce the Bill of Rights on places such as Commiefornia and New Yawk and Chigawgo and if necessary bring the troops home and have them restore Liberty here and remove Amerika’s natural born traitors in the process.
Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then wet their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.
It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don’t understand? Go to willowtowndotcom and read the quotes page first. Then read my column “Prepping for Slavery.”
Comments are closed.