Why they call you a traitor, Bill Schneider

From Bill Schneider's latest column, he seems to be confused. Let me splain, Bill. I'll take your gun lover creds mentioned in the first five or six paragraphs at face value. Your a gun guy. But wait, there's more.

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.

Here's where we digress, Bill. Why in the name of freedom aren't they all the most important? I absolutely will not sacrifice any one, or part of one, to save another. Any attack on any right is an attack on all rights.

Shoot, I wonder if the gun nuts have asked themselves this question. Would the Second Amendment even pass today?

This gun nut has. The answer is, passing it would be a bitch. That does not mean it's irrelevant or invalid. That only means some people today do not recognize a right when they see it. For two hundred years no one ever even asked that question Bill.

An allegory. If motorcycles* had never been invented but I invented it today, do you think the states would license the things for the streets? Probably not, at least not without a fight. That doesn't mean they are inherently bad things.

Aspirin, if discovered today, would never pass FDA muster and would not be approved. Because it's toxic to rodents. It would never have gotten out of the lab.

My point is you are making a specious argument. We're onto that trick, too, us gun nuts.

That’s not all that scares me. I could go on, but the point is. Losing some of my gun rights doesn’t make my top twenty concerns. If that makes me a “traitor,” well, we have a pandemic of treason in this country.

It means you are an appeaser. You are willing to negotiate away my rights. Losing any of your gun rights, or any other rights, should be your entire concern. Negotiating with the enemy so you can be subjugated last, still gets you subjugated. And that can and will get you or someone killed. No thanks Bill. That's no hope / change I'll fight against.

By the way Bill, once you've given away some of your gun rights (which aren't just yours to give) what's the plan on getting them back? Civil war? Secession? Overthrow some other country and set up your own?

Even after enduring the name-calling, I admire the dedication of gun nuts. Guns, guns, guns--that’s all that matters to these people. They’ve closed their minds to compromise. To them, there’s no such thing as a common sense gun law. Because of their single-mindedness, they get it done. Ask any politician who has proposed a “reasonable gun law.”

Here is why. We've been "compromised" way too much. I wish you had given an example of a "common sense" or "reasonable gun law" I could chop to pieces for you.

Even though I think gun nuts deserve our respect, I don’t always respect their tactics. Witness the recent Cooper Firearms fiasco. The gun nuts went on a mission to crucify Dan Cooper and destroy his company for expressing his support for Barrack Obama. In their words, they “Zumboed him.”

That is not correct, Bill. We merely spoke our minds, some people refused to buy their products because Dan Cooper choose to support an anti-gun presidential candidate. Actions have consequences. Dan Cooper did this to himself. I thought you supported free speech? Guess you traded part of that support away already.

This is America, land of the free and the brave, where we don’t persecute people for their beliefs.

You're right, we don't persecute. We also do not have to do business with them. Or speak to them. Or be friends with them. You may have heard of "the right of free association".

Many of us find bullying and boycotting distasteful, but like negative campaign ads, how can you argue with success? Nobody condones it, but anybody who has been on the wrong end of bullying at recess, like I have been, knows bullying works. That is the problem, isn’t it?

When did bullying and boycotting become synonymous? This is that old supposition trick. We're supposed to just accept that they are the same? Any dictionary says you are confused.

Despite the fear mongering I read in the comment sections and gun blogs, I believe President Obama is smart enough to keep his party from being again swept out of power because of the gun issue.

I believe they are not smart enough. We'll see who is right. There, it's a tie of opinion.

Somehow, we need to separate the two issues, guns and hunting, which continues to my main criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA). America’s most powerful lobby should stick to protecting our gun rights and not pretend to represent hunters.

Why do you insist on sacrificing someone or thing or right? Why not protect all lawful uses of a firearm, and for that matter, all firearms? This is why people think you are a traitor. You're selling us out, at least some of us. The Second Amendment is about combat arms. Not hunting guns, not collecting, not shooting sports. Those protections all flow from having and bearing combat arms.

The anti-rights crowd is still trying to call your deer rifle a sniper rifle. Your shotgun an urban assault weapon. Your backup revolver is too powerful for civilian use. Imagine what the anti-gun people would think of a punt gun?

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments. So, they mock us, calling us Elmer Fudds. But the hunter’s revenge is the Pitman-Robinson Act, which mandates excise taxes historically paid mostly by hunters, but now mostly paid by gun owners who never hunt or even loathe hunters as turncoats. Back at you, buddy.

Some, a small minority, may have jokingly called you Fudds, or maybe mocked you. Your guy, Zumbo, called me a terrorist. Who's the nasty bastard now? Bill, the point is we should be on the same side. Hunters fully supporting mere gun owners, shooters supporting hunters, sheep dogs supporting collectors. It's really is all about the guns.

Regrettably, one of these tactics is anonymity. It gives gun nuts the freedom to say things they’d never say using their real names. I say ignore anything said by snipers with non de plumes. They have something to hide.

Two things. I would never say something here I wouldn't say to anyone face to face. I would love to blog under my name, published world wide.

Secondly, I can't. Where I live, owning a gun is sufficient to deny hiring. People would try to deny housing. The HOA here would love to kick me out. The goblins would try to rob my house. I have a family to think of Bill. I think you are trying to step on my first amendment and natural rights to say what I want. Are you sure you support individual rights?

In conclusion, I’ve learned a lot from the gun nuts, but here’s one thing they can learn from me. Don’t alienate the majority of gun owners. Don’t automatically dismiss gun owners with sincere suggestions because they don’t perfectly match your doctrine. Don’t instantly shoot this commentary full of freedom holes, which I’m sure you can do, at least until you think about it. Have you just read a mainstream strategy for growing the constituency willing to help you protect our right to bear arms?

Stand by for freedom holes! We true gun nuts are not willing to throw the majority of gun owners under the wheels of the train to get our way. Or the minority of gun owners, either. You certainly seem willing to do so. We want all lawful gun owners (and their guns) protected. No compromises, no illegal guns, no stepping on rights. You should join us, Bill, we'd welcome you. If you stop trying to push me off the bus, that is.

*It always comes back to bikes and guns.

☮