Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Now here's a new term for citizen disarmament advocate

New to me, anyway--and it's a subject on which I try to stay current. Anyway, the term is "gun supervision activist." "Gun supervision" sounds a bit less threatening (to those who don't feel threatened by having nanny state policies forced on them, anyway) than "gun control"--a term that Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein, Josh Sugarmann, et al. have made synonymous with outright bans (remember "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it"?).

To give credit where it's due, the inventor of the new term is Rob Nesvacil at Illinois Reason, and he applied it to Thom Mannard, current head cheerleader for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Rob and I have crossed (rhetorical) swords occasionally before. He doesn't specialize in gun issues, as I do, and there are probably some issues on which I would agree with him, but when he does talk about guns, it's always in favor of more draconian restrictions on . . . er, reasonable supervision of the right of the people that shall not be infringed.

Along with another pro-rights activist in Illinois, DWLawson, I have been debating with Mr. Nesvacil about both the value and the Constitutionality of gun legislation--the debate taking place in the comments section of the Illinois Reason post linked to above. As always, we have made zero progress in changing his views (and cannot even really get him to respond to many of our points), but the debate was more entertaining for me than, say, watching my poor, overmatched St. Louis Rams' courageous bid to outrace the Dolphins for the honor of Most Pathetic Team in the NFL.

Rob also refers to "Second Amendment literalists" (actually, it was "hyper 2A literalists")--that would be folks like me, I guess--but Rob apparently can't take credit for that expression (and DW gets the nod for "Second Amendment figurativists"--of which, I suppose, "gun supervision activists" would be a subset).

Anyway, this "gun supervision" thing sounds really great--maybe censorship advocates should start referring to themselves as "speech supervision activists"--that sounds much more innocuous, doesn't it? Don't worry, folks--we don't want to abridge your Constitutional rights--we just want to supervise them. Let freedom ring (from a well supervised bell, of course).

10 comments:

Smershagent said...

Excellent post, my friend. I was tempted to opine on Rob's website, but it's an exercise in frustration that I do not need at present. You and Dave are doing splendidly representing our side. As much as I disagree with Rob's double standards, refusal to acknowledge points that have been brought repeatedly to his attention re: SB1007, and his belief that everyone's conduct should be self censored (or supervised by the authorities), comments on his site have always been "on" ever since I started reading there. I give him credit for his version of "reasoned discourse", and I wish Paul Helmke and every other anti-rights blogger in the world would follow Rob's example.

45superman said...

Rob's example could certainly teach Helmke something about "reasoned discourse." The lesson would go unheeded, I fear, though.

Rob said...

Thanks for the link and the compliments (I think). I don't follow Brady Campaign so can't speak to comparisons with Mr. Helmke.

I will note that I prefer "supervision" (or even "regulation") because most laws are simply codification of such.

"Control" (though many on both sides of this particular issue use it) is not my goal, though I suppose Kurt, DW, Smersh, et al would disagree on what 'my goal' is.

Also note that the original subject of my post was this latest example of the ISRA's unnecessarily bile-filled vitriol.

45superman said...

"Control" (though many on both sides of this particular issue use it) is not my goal, though I suppose Kurt, DW, Smersh, et al would disagree on what 'my goal' is.

I don't presume to know what your "goal" is, and I realize that the gun issue is not really central to your beliefs.

Still, government supervision seems rather close to control, and most of the "gun control," or "gun supervision," (what have you) laws that are either proposed, or on the books are, in some capacity, citizen disarmament laws.

As such, they all serve to bring the government closer to a monopoly on force.

I therefore see support for such laws as opposition to liberty.

TJH said...

So who is doing the supervising?

45superman said...

So who is doing the supervising?

Our wise, benevolent masters, of course.

Big Brother knows best.

PN NJ said...

Must be related to the "liberty eradication specialist".

Rob said...

TJH asks, "So who is doing the supervising?"


We are through elections.

The AW ban y'all despised so much expired for two reasons: Republican controlled Congress and the White House.

You guys got Republicans elected and that ban expired as a result. (Now, massive 4A violations, an illegal war based on lies, and skyrocketing debt came along as a result ... but who's counting.)

45superman said...

We are through elections.

"We" are, eh? Speak for yourself--I'm not interested in supervising any (ostensibly) free citizens.

The AW ban y'all despised so much expired for two reasons: Republican controlled Congress and the White House.

White House? What did the White House have to do with it? I don't understand why the citizen disarmament advocates . . . er, "gun supervision activists" blame Bush for the expiration of the AWB, and I similarly don't understand why some of my fellow Bill of Rights advocates credit him with that. He can't sign a bill that doesn't get to his desk.

You guys got Republicans elected and that ban expired as a result. (Now, massive 4A violations, an illegal war based on lies, and skyrocketing debt came along as a result ... but who's counting.)

Wow--if backlash to the AWB caused all that, maybe we have yet more superb reasons to respect the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

45superman said...

By the way, don't think of it as Fourth Amendment violations--think of it as "persons, houses, papers, and effects supervision."

Likewise, it's not an illegal war--it's "internal affairs of another sovereign nation supervision."
;-)