From a UCLA Professor of Anthropology:
I don’t know where to begin on the current state of insanity in the U.S. Let’s see, maybe guns is a good place to start. Gun sales are reported to have risen noticeably since Obama was elected. Some of this was probably just the usual paranoid insanity of the NRA gun nuts. Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away. If that were true, what would be the point of buying more? But of course these new guns, along with all the others they possess, could be hidden for use when the government tries to take over their guns. When you suggest to these nuts that their rifles, pistols, and even AK 47’s wouldn’t be much use against the weapons the government could employ they either look blank or argue they should be allowed 50 caliber machine guns and even howitzers and tanks. As one of them put it the other day, “if you can tow it behind your pickup it ought to be legal.†Who can argue against such logic (insanity). As near as I can determine Obama has a perfectly sensible approach to the problem of guns, recognizing the difference between the needs of rural dwellers and inner city gangs and etc. He has never suggested taking away everyone’s guns. But nothing is sensible when it comes to the NRA.
I’m always amazed at the total lack of respect of people of the left have for our beliefs and arguments. Just crass dismissal, without even an attempt to intellectually refute us. You’re just “nuts” and “paranoid.” Especially when it’s pretty clear this university professor has never bothered to investigate Obama’s record on guns, which includes a lengthy career of trying to destroy the Second Amendment.
And finally, there is the tired notion of an armed population being obsolete. I’ve said in the past, you can’t stop your government from killing you, but the use of political violence, which is one of the evils that the Second Amendment is meant to protect against, is not about killing for the sake of killing, it’s about coercion. It’s about forcing people to submit to the will of others who wish to rule over them.
These are radical ideas, and not something I think most people sitting in the ivory towers of academia really wish to think about. I can’t say I blame them. They are unpleasant ideas, representing circumstances very different than we currently face. But societies looking to avoid such unpleasantness have often found it, and been unprepared. Our good professor would like to dismiss us because we choose to engage in the intellectual exercise. It’s part of the Bill of Rights, and something our founders, having just emerged from a successful revolution, thought about a great deal. I think we do them a disservice if we don’t keep their ideas alive and relevant, regardless of how sound our political system is at the moment.
This article illustrates why the gun control debate is so vitriolic and why smart gun owners rarely compromise. Too many people on the other side have only contempt for us and see no need to listen to out arguments.
Also, as per usual, the good LA professor doesn’t know the law. You can have a tank, and even a howitzer, even in California (note: a decent tank comes equipped with a howitzer). Just as all black rifles are machine guns, if they aren’t lying they’re ignorant.
New site look is clean and nice, btw.
It’s not just how they play the political game (if they don’t cheat they can’t win) it’s also how they construct an argument.
It always amazes me how the same people who believe that “rifles, pistols, and even AK 47’s wouldn’t be much use against the weapons the government could employ” are the same people protesting our involvement with the war in Iraq. You know, the war where a bunch of “nuts” using rifles, pistols, AK-47s and home-made bombs have been holding out against superior government forces for over 5yrs.
How can they be so aware of the latter and still believe the former?
“Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away. If that were true, what would be the point of buying more?”
Same reason as ever: That the King may know there are places his writ does not run.
III
I’m curious, how many women rushed out to get last minute abortions when Bush was sworn into office?
“Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away. If that were true, what would be the point of buying more?â€
Because its a lot more profitable for us citizens than dumping a shipload of tea in the ocean, and makes the same point.
“How can they be so aware of the latter and still believe the former?”
Simple. They’re disconnected from reality.
Jim W. – Abortion rights are NOT under the same kind of constant onslaught that gun rights are.
Jim W, do you understand the concept of perishability with regard to services as opposed to goods, or are you merely obtuse?
” Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away. If that were true, what would be the point of buying more?”
A cursory review of the events of 4/18/1775 might go a long way toward explaining that. Moron, they’re NOT planning on turning them in, at least not until the temperature of the gun is substantially higher than that of their cooling bodies.
I just hope everyone out their buying guns remembers to pick up a few cases of ammo to go with it.
Guns no go bang when you have nothing to feed it.
Look,
When I saw “UCLA Professor of Anthropology” I never whatever was coming next was gonna be absolute bullcrap. Academics are the worst judges of human nature. They typically make a career out of ignoring common sense and promoting absurdity.
A real academic doesn’t need to make ad hominem attacks to make his point. His consistent referral to gun owners as “Nuts,” and his insistence of the NRA as some tool of extremists shows his inability to understand any opposing viewpoint. An insolent, short sighted, so called “Academic,” who ignores history and engages in absurd personal attacks shows the state of what has become of intellectuals. Sad, but true……..
If your weapons are self-propelled, they should be exempt from the “tow-ability by a pickup” requirement.
By reading a few posts on his blog and cross-referencing it to the Dept of Anthropology at UCLA, I figured out who it was.
The guy’s specialties were psychological and cultural anthropology, history of anthropology, and Melanesia. Now I don’t know what the heck psychological anthropology is or consists of but I would think that anyone who went running around in the jungles of Papua New Guinea or Guadalcanal would like to have a firearm for protection.
Granted, anthropology is one of the social sciences, and it is not a hard science, but even so, it is still imperative for one who holds out such credentials to the public as being a retired professor to at least rely on proper facts, argument, and proof of arguments. I see only unproven rantings in this article. Perhaps the retired professor has spent too much time preaching to like-minded acquaintances and has forgotten the necessity of proving one’s point.
“…usual paranoid insanity of the NRA gun nuts.”
You are accusing an entire class of persons of being paranoid and insane. Upon what factual basis do you make these assertions? Are you licensed to practice medicine in Idaho? Do you normally make overbroad generalizations about classes of people? You know what they say about people who use stereotypes! (NOTE: Do you you see the joke?) Do you feel that you are superior to others or specially gifted? When people challenge your arguments (or lack of arguments), do you feel persecuted? When people challenge you, do you want to cut them off and exclude them from dialog?
Surely you realize that the USA is not composed of a single monolithic culture. Who are you to judge the mores and values of a cultural subgroup within the USA? HOW DARE YOU! Do you not believe in cultural relativism? Your prejudicial and judgmental attitude towards a subgroup of Americans seems to be a strong indicator that you do not believe in cultural relativism. Upon what self-righteous foundation do you presume to judge others? How is your view of culture and society superior to those you presume to judge?
“Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away.”
He does mean to do just that. Actually, the Obama campaign site and change.gov site were quite clear that they intend to ban whole classes of guns based upon a fictional relationship between weapons and crime. The tone of your writing is designed to imply that anyone who reads and accepts Obama’s own promises at face value is somehow failing to see reality as it really is. Are you arguing that Obama is lying? Otherwise, your argument makes no sense.
“If that were true, what would be the point of buying more?”
I can tell you this very clearly. People are not buying weapons with the expectation of turning them over if they are banned or outlawed. They will be used to defend against judgmental bigots and oppressors.
“He has never suggested taking away everyone’s guns.”
Oops. Now you are changing your story in mid-stream. Originally, you made it sound like Obama was not going to take anyone’s guns, and anyone who thought that was not seeing reality. Now you are saying that, in fact, he is going to take guns, but you have shifted your argument to say that he is only going to take some guns. Are you intentionally arguing in circles?
“But nothing is sensible when it comes to the NRA.”
Uhh… Actually, the only lack of sense I am detecting is in the writings at this site. Also, you have failed to state what specific policies of the NRA are not sensible, and upon what factual basis you make such an assertion? As such, this statement is an unfounded assertion.
Have you considered taking rhetoric 101?
anon should have mentioned that Intelligence-Check 101 is a pre-requisite to Rhetoric 101.