Redefining Insane

We’ve highlighted quite a bit of rhetoric from anti-gun advocates who view Second Amendment supporters as less than human, or at least as people who deserve less respect than they do as citizens. They want us thrown out of the political debate, our rights to petition our government officials stripped, our right to organize taken away, and our First Amendment right to even speak out with our opinions on what various government entities are doing in regards to firearms policy restricted.

With the Aurora shooting bringing more attention to the issue of mental health qualifications for gun ownership, I couldn’t help but notice a trend in quite a few pieces written by those looking for more gun control. (Emphasis added below.)

  • “US gun laws: Guilty by reason of insanity” – Laramie Boomerang: “Perhaps, if sane laws on gun control, including the ban on high capacity magazines, were in place, many in Aurora who are now dead or seriously injured would be alive and well today.”
  • Washington Post: “The gun lobby barely had to say a word before the media sent advocates of saner gun regulation shuffling off in defeat.”
  • New York Times: “The fact that Congress found it impossible to extend the law against guns that allow you to shoot off 100 bullets in a couple of minutes is simply insane.”
  • “NRA’s definition of ‘sane American‘ sure has changed” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “Today, sane Americans can’t even talk about guns.”
  • “Gun Sanity” – The Record: “Stop the insanity. It is that simple. The Second Amendment does not give Americans a constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction.”
  • “Gun Insanity” – Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus: “The Luntz poll suggests that gun owners are saner than our leaders think. Responsible gun owners don’t need access to assault weapons.”

They want to define their political opponents down. See, you can’t possibly be sane if you have a different opinion on public policy. If you’re not sane, well, we can’t trust you with firearms. It’s as simple as that…

22 thoughts on “Redefining Insane”

  1. Awful lot of fail in those editorials. I thought about taking one down point-by-point, but I have other things to do this year, and it wouldn’t penetrate their thick skulls anyway.

  2. On one hand they push this meme that they are only after reasonable tweaks. Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear. Then on the other hand, those same people describe our current laws as “ABSOLUTLY INSANE!!!” That doesn’t sound like it could be fixed with a few little tweaks that only affect career criminals.

  3. On the bright side…

    The Second Amendment does not give Americans a constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction.

    If a semi-automatic rifle with a greater than 10 round magazine is now a weapon of mass destruction, I guess they can no longer deny that Iraq was continuing to amass WMD.

  4. I’d talk about the Soviet tactic of medicalizing dissent, but it’s old hat by now…

    (To riff off what AndyN said, I wonder how many of those people realize that owning muzzle-loading artillery is completely legal at the Federal level and regulated exactly as laxly as a muzzle-loading rifle, which is to say “over 18 and not a felon, feel free to mail-order”, more or less.

    They would suffer immediate PSH if told.)

  5. (Also, the Times said: “The fact that Congress found it impossible to extend the law against guns that allow you to shoot off 100 bullets in a couple of minutes is simply insane.”

    A couple of minutes? Let’s assume 2, to be nice to them. That’s a bullet every 1 1/5 seconds.

    You can do that with a WW1-era Lee Enfield. You can do that with a 10 round magazine in a semi-auto. You can probably do that with a revolver and speed-loaders.

    That’s not impressive to anyone outside the Times and some of its readership.)

  6. The Second Amendment, also being tied to the Militia use of arms SHOULD protect the right to keep and bear any arms an average foot soldier would normally carry. Machine guns, grenades, law rockets, claymores, should all be legal for a US citizen to buy and have on him for any legal purpose he so chooses.

    Now that’s what I’d call sensible gun laws!

    1. In US v Miller the Supreme Court overruled the district court that had ruled that restricting ownership of a double-barrel shotgun with a barrel less than 18″ violated the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court’s rationalization – which I don’t necessarily agree with – was that that specific type of weapon had no reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. However, they also stated that the militia in question was all able-bodied male citizens who were expected to provide themselves with a type of weapon in common use at the time (although I also don’t necessarily agree with their interpretation of why such a militia was necessary). And this isn’t some 18th century anachronism, this case was decided in 1939, long after the US had established a standing army. It’s also worth noting that as far as I know, this case has never been overturned, so it’s still legal precedent.

      So it seems to me that not only should it be legal for all US citizens to buy those things that you mentioned, it should be required to one degree or another. And ironically, the types of weapons that the gun grabbers would be willing let us keep if they had their way and could ban all the scary looking ones, are weapons that are less likely to fit the description set forth in Miller as to what the 2nd Amendment protects. For example, how does John Kerry’s duck gun have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”?

      1. Again, good comment, Andy, and outstanding research. I have tried to point out that portion of U.S. v. Miller for a long time, but opponents only recognize, falsely I believe, Miller for its supposed reference to a “collective” right. Well done, sir!

      2. I’ve always been struck by the semantics of the Miller decision. As I recall everyone always claims the court said a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon, whereas what they really said was that it has not been shown that a short barreled shotgun is a military weapon. This could have been a huge difference which could have resulted in a different finding in other circumstances. Remember that Miller was not represented in court. If the Second Amendment was being argued it would have been savvy to argue that indeed a short barreled shotgun is a military weapon, also referred to as a trench sweeper in an earlier war and still used to this day by the military for close quarter combat…but nobody was there to argue the point so it was not shown to the court to be the case. I believe there is a difference between saying its not a military weapon and saying its not been shown to be a military weapon.

    2. Excellent point, Zermoid, and one I’ve been preaching for years now! Thank you!

  7. There seems to be a lot of talk here about those anti-gun idiots demonizing anyone who is pro-gun.
    And it is certainly accurate.
    But there also seems to be a lot of talk here demonizing those people.

    So I’m guessing that it’s more fun to vilify people who have differing beliefs than to actually accomplish anything.

    I have to ask, what is the goal?

    Unless you’re someone like Rush Limbaugh, you should be able to recognize that it is possible to disagree in a civil manner, and that it’s more likely to achieve a goal.

    1. Anyone trying to restrict my 2A rights is an idiot & well deserving of that name. I get very un-civil when it comes to assholes trying to ban my rifles. So GFY Harold Lloyd!

    2. Actually, Harold, it isn’t possible. Not any more. Because we’ve seen, repeatedly, that the Left aren’t interested in any compromise; they will only be content when our right to bear arms, our rights to our property, our rights to believe as we please, are gone, and only slavery, with them as the slavemasters, is left.

      I’m not polite to slavers, Harold.

    3. Harold, you are granting them an assumption of good faith that they forfeited long ago.

Comments are closed.