Uncle Barney puts down that Miller Lite long enough to save us from tyranny

March 10, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

This week the Carpetbagger had a short piece on outdoor writer Jim Zumbo, who fell victim to an NRA-sponsored search-and-destroy campaign after he dared to suggest in a column that it’s not very sporting to hunt prairie dogs with an assault rifle.

The ‘Bagger linked to an item about this matter on the blog of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. I read the Brady Campaign’s post and the comments that followed it. The Brady Campaign’s blog appears to have a serious problem with trolls. Nearly every comment was from a gun nut.

It’s a testament to the Brady Campaign that they leave this crap up. But I can see why they do it, as it’s quite instructive. You can learn just how delusional the NRA nutcases are. Typical is this comment by the grammatically challenged “Michael,” who patiently explains what the Second Amendment is really all about.

“The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Our Founding Fathers intended for the people to always maintain the ability to, should it become necessary, to throw out an [sic] government gone bad.”

Oh, I see. The Founding Fathers meant for any bunch of clowns who can get their hands on some long rifles to have a constitutional right to take it upon themselves to march on Washington, kill or imprison our government leaders and install a new regime more to their liking. Yep, that’s what they wanted. James Madison was all about that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Michael, but the romantic notion that a loose band of armed irregulars could spring into action at a moment’s notice to defend the liberties of the nation is a wet dream from a NRA gun-porn magazine.

Read a history book. We tried it during the War of 1812. The idea was that informal militias in the states would just sort of appear when needed. Called to duty by their country, the nation’s farmers and craftsmen would walk away from their plows and smiths, pick up their rifles and run off to save the homeland.

It didn’t work out too well. The militia was supposed to augment the small standing army we had in the post-Revolutionary War period, but the farmer-soldiers had a bad habit of not showing up or deserting. (To be fair, the regular army was often no prize at this time either.) The militia was no match for well-trained, professional British redcoats. Widespread military incompetence led to the burning of Washington on Aug. 24, 1814.

Back then, both sides were roughly evenly matched in terms of firepower. Think about the situation today. As we know from Iraq, a well equipped insurgency can undermine even a professional fighting force. But that does not mean that bunch of pot-bellied, beer-chugging bozos in rural Michigan could take on the U.S. Army. The very idea is beyond amusing. Sure, it’s easy enough to march into the woods twice a year with an AK-47 and blow away an unarmed turkey or a white-tailed deer. That hardly makes you and your buddies ready to confront a crack division of U.S. Marines in full armor backed by tanks, missiles and air power. I have a news flash for these guys: “Red Dawn” was just a movie — and a poor one at that.

Watching the staggering ineptitude of the Bush Gang, there are days when I yearn for any legal and constitutional mechanism to clear them all out. I doubt there is one. But no matter how bad it gets, I’m not backing armed rebellion. After all, there will be another election sooner or later.

So keep your shiny assault weapon in the closet, Michael, but don’t use the alleged need for rebellion to justify your bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment. No one has asked you to overthrow the government. If you and your friends decide to go out and play Army and save the republic by taking on real soldiers, my guess is you will learn rather quickly what it’s like to be one of those prairie dogs you mow down for sport.

Morbo, stifling your feelings is bad for you. Don’t hold it in – tell us how your really feel.

🙂

  • “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
    —————-Thomas Jefferson

    The sad thing about these militia-types is that they interpret “Rebellion” as meaning the complete armed overthrow of the United States, supplanting whatever Government is in place with their dangerously-narrow interpretation of what “good government” should be. The problem here is not “the entire Government;” rather, it is the criminal enterprise that sits in the place of the Executive branch of that Government. “Michael” and his war-game buddies would be much better citizen-servants of these United States if they were to openly—and actively—start marching in anti-Bush demonstrations. Let them wear their head-to-toe camo and their army-surplus-store “Mickey Mouse” boots if they so desire—but leave the AK’s at home. “Defence of the Homeland” means “the damned dirt your standing on, and what it stands for;” not some Tammany-esque travesty of justice that’s occupying the WH, or an antique silver-screen-hack who played Moses in a movie some four or five decades ago….

  • But, but… that is what it’s about – that a well informed citizenry retains the ability to rise up yet again, if necessary, against tyranny.

    Metaphorically: folks around here have been up in arms () of late ‘ore an assault on the internet.

  • The Jim Zumbo story is really disheartening. The NRA and its just-like-Karl-Rove scorched earth tactics hunted down and killed one of the best outdors writers in this nation — just because he said something true. There’s a reason hunting rifles are called hunting rifles and assault rifles are called assault rifles. One has the ballistics and power to drop a large animal with one ethical shot, the other is for putting large amounts of small caliber lead into the air at close range to mortally wound anything unlucky enough to be in a combat zone. Fishing with dynamite could technically be called fishing and hunting with an assault rifle could technically be called hunting, but only the ethically impaired would do either. And that explains why the NRA took such a brutal and immoral route to proving its point.

    If I were the leader of Iran or North Korea, I’d get an NRA membership and put their decals along the borders. Because the NRA will do whatever it can to protect the weapons of its membership. You’d have to pry Iran’s or North Korea’s nukes from the NRA’s cold, dead hands. Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Amedinejad just need to say they’re going to use the nukes for hunting. Sound stupid? Just as stupid as hunting with an assault rifle.

  • “The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Our Founding Fathers intended for the people to always maintain the ability to, should it become necessary, to throw out an [sic] government gone bad.”

    This kind of delusional thinking is critical to the NRA in its efforts to cast itself as a mainstream organization. Let’s say that the government decides to take over your town. Do you think any number of assault rifles are going to help? No, you’ll want bomb-making equipment, shoulder-mounted missiles, even tanks and such. If the NRA were really serious about its members being the last defense against a tyrannical government, they’d be pushing for legal private ownership of these kinds of things. But as long as people think that with their assault rifles and a good attitude they can defeat the U.S. Army, everything’s fine. Guns: the opiate of the rightwing masses.

  • loved the reference to “red dawn” – truly a ridiculous movie. but it does hold a coveted place in cinematic history: it was the first movie rated PG-13.

  • Sometimes, people are so in love with Amendment 2 that they overlook Article III, section 3:

    Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    How can one part of the Constitution allow for rebelling against the government, when another part defines it as a crime??

  • What? No mention of the fact that the DC Federal Court of Appeals yesterday ruled (2-1) that the District of Columbia’s gun law is unconstitutional “on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias.”?

    If the Supremes uphold this new ruling, gun laws everywhere are threatened.

  • Guns are best held to prevent being victims of crime by small crazy radical groups who think they know what’s best for Americans but often that doesn’t include you. No good against armies but makes for a paranoid police state, eh? But assault rifles aren’t much good for anything but an overactive imagination.

  • “What? No mention of the fact that the DC Federal Court of Appeals yesterday ruled (2-1) that the District of Columbia’s gun law is unconstitutional “on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias.”?

    If the Supremes uphold this new ruling, gun laws everywhere are threatened. ” – Ed Stephan

    It’s no secret to many constitutional scholars and professionals in law that the Second Amendment is nearly considered a joke.
    I’ve been told that many professionals consider the protection of gun rights as a function of state militias, as opposed to individuals. I find it interesting that DC CoP ruling would support that idea that individuals have the authority to own firearms. Pardon my misunderstanding, but why would gun laws be threatened?
    Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

  • I’m rather disapointed that such a good post was ruined by the author’s lack of knowledge.

    First off Mr. Morbo you cannot legaly hunt anything with an AK47 that I’m aware of. I know you cannot use an AK47 for hunting in the state of Illinois or Indiana (both extremely redneck states). Since I’m in the process of aquiring a SAR1 (romanian AK47 clone) I wanted to know if I could use it for hunting so I checked it out.

    Second off you can only legally own a true assault rifle with a special permit or via grandfather laws (good luck with that cause prices are crazy).

    Third off I believe the Iraq’s are doing quite well fighting those tanks and missles as I’m typing this. The +3000 dead is enough evidence for me.

    So as a final reminder I’d like to request that you stop using the MSM’s memo of “assualt rifle” for weapons that are NOT assault rifles….

  • One has the ballistics and power to drop a large animal with one ethical shot, the other is for putting large amounts of small caliber lead into the air at close range to mortally wound anything unlucky enough to be in a combat zoneExactly a TRUE assault rifle has an option for automatic fire as you already stated…

  • Our country’s existence owes itself to the notion that when a government is no longer responsive to the governed, it must be overturned. The 2nd Amendment is a mechanism for facilitating that. More importantly, it’s a mechanism for protecting onesself from the overreach of that unresponsive government. As the ACLU pointed out, the Patriot Act makes all of us terrorists if the government so decrees it. And that seems to be the way we’re headed.

    Just because a ragtag band of citizens with long guns couldn’t put down the US army if necessary doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

  • Grumpy, it is possible to rebel against a government without levying war against it. And a-y-m, should the time to try arise, I imagine that the ragtag band will possess something better than “long guns.” Given the current administration’s treatment of our troops, I believe that the ragtag band could well find itself on the same side as the Army….

  • Morbo we have a “legal and constitutional mechanism to clear them all out,” but the new Democratic Congress lacks the will. It’s called impeachment, and IMHO there is more than enough evidence to remove Bush/Cheney, et al. I don’t buy the ‘you can’t impeach a president when the country is at war’ argument. We are only at war because Bush resides in the White House.

    On another note, I have to laugh when I see comments like the one above from Matt. I do have a question for him, though, regarding “One has the ballistics and power to drop a large animal with one ethical shot.” Ethical shot? Wouldn’t it be more ethical to ‘kill’ a large piece of paper with a big red circle in the center, hanging from a bail of hay?

    BAC

  • “On another note, I have to laugh when I see comments like the: one above from Matt. I do have a question for him, though, regarding “One has the ballistics and power to drop a large animal with one ethical shot.” Ethical shot? Wouldn’t it be more ethical to ‘kill’ a large piece of paper with a big red circle in the center, hanging from a bail of hay?”

    The real irony here is that I wasn’t even the one you’re quoting. I found out with that post that XHTML for some reason doesn’t support the standard html quote method.

    Would it be more ethical for me to just let the coyotes/cougars/feral dogs/whatever eat my live stock, my family pets and my kids? I am always amazed by how little city dwellars know about country/rural living. You probably think that it’s better to wound an animal with a bow and track it for miles then to drop it dead in it’s tracks with minimal suffering.

    FYI all I do is target shoot but I did want to hunt with my SAR1 for the sake of saying I hunted with an AK47 (lol joke).

  • In case you’re wondering my family consists of some very active hunters (bow/rifle/powder/you name it). Over the years I’ve heard far more stories about the “one that got” away in relation to bow hunting then during rifle/powder seasons. The difficulty in scoring a good clean kill with a bow vs a gun is the leading cause of this.

  • I like Miller Lite you fancy snob. If you want to get 51% of the vote, stop ranking on beer drinkers.

  • But Miller Lite isn’t beer, Bill C. Hell, even American beer companies have discovered they have to make “real” beer. Go to your local grocery store and try any amber ale from a smaller company that’s on sale at a price close to your Miller Lite, and I bet you won’t buy any of that swill anymore.

    TC – fellow beer drinker

  • Matt – I agree with your points, but the issue at hand is that the NRA got all ballistic on Jim Zumbo’s career for basically agreeing with you. I’m an elk hunter myself and I pride myself on pursuing the hunt ethically and humanely (I know others my knock that opinion.) But most assault-type rifles (AK’s and modern knock-offs and AR-15s and copies) are shooting rounds that are less than .24 caliber. That is a round that is illegal to hunt big game at least in my state. Rounds for assault rifles, whether at full auto or at semi-auto, are ineffective for hunting and are also known for not shooting expandable bullets that will succeed in what most hunters will term a humane kill, but many of these rounds, particularly for Soviet style weapons, have a steel core shell that resists the mushrooming that a responsible hunter would look for in a reliable round.

    What it boils down to is Zumbo was right, despite his after the fact protestations, and the NRA is wrong. Owning assault-type rifles is a matter unto itself. Saying a person owns them for the purpose of hunting is crap, and that is the issue in this story.

  • Matt, I spent the first half of my life in a rural area in the midwest, and my father never once shot a gun.

    BAC

  • Petorado, PLease please don’t think I’m trying to defend the NRA. I believe that organization could be run much better to say the least. I just have a hard time calling a semi-automatic AK47 an assault rifle. By some definitions a .22 rimfire rifle is an assault rifle (+30 round mag). I do not have a problem with ak47s be banned from hunting either for the reasons you stated. I wasn’t looking at hunting anything bigger then a relatively small furry animal anyway.

    BAC, I spent the first half of my life living on a farm with a variety of livestock and obviously I shot quite a few guns in that time period.

  • Matt – I don’t begrudge your points. Shooting sports are fun and a big reason why they’re so popular. I know many a rancher who drives around with small caliber semi-auto arms in their pickups to get rid of vermin and I’m sure you’re doing the same.

    I have discomfort in knowing that the NRA is trying to justifying making these arms easy to get because they are good for hunting. In my book, not really. Especially if most people are assuming that once a person mentions “rifle” that the conversation means big game. Jim Zumbo was getting to the point that the ability to rapidly fire a semi-auto seems to get in the way of some hunter’s idea of what is sporting in hunting and what’s not. And for that he was lambasted. I’ve had considerable unease during big game season hearing the rapid reports of semi-autos being fired at what I’m assuming are running game. These occasions are not frequent, but in my mind it’s not the action of an ethical or good hunter.

    I’ve read Jim for many years and he always had a more heroic image of hunters than many of the public disconnected from life in the field. I think he should have been allowed his opinions by the NRA and not lose his career over an honestly felt and honestly reasoned comment. I could tell you feel the same way about what the NRA did to Zumbo.

  • Petorado I wasn’t aware that you hunted with a single shot rifle. I applaud your balls for relying on one shot for killing big game.

    At the farm everything except for an old WW2 bolt action rifle and a couple shot guns were semi-automatic (hell most of our shotguns were semi-automatic and quite capable of dropping 5 shots quickly). The point is you’re attacking the gun and then making an off hand comment about disliking hunters who used it the wrong way. I think the real problem is the unethical or in my view plain dangerous hunters that you described (fortunately I’ve never ran into a similiar situation).

  • Dear Morbo:

    I guess I am famous now. I am the one who you “quoted” from the Brady blog. Interesting that you did not cross-post your comments so I could easily find them. But over there on the BC blog, you would be out-numbered (which is interesting that the pro-civli rights side dominates what is suppose to be the premiere gun control site).

    As far as history, try reading the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment uses “the rights of the people” just like the 2nd does. Do you doubt that the 1st protects free speech of the individual? Also, in regards to “militia” check out the link below.

    http://www.jpfo.org/militia.htm

    There are an estimated 80-90 million gun owners in this country, many who are hunters who shoot rifles more powerful than the M-16 (30-06 vs .223). Even with tanks, the Marines have a few hundred thousand troops.

    That being said, do you really want to live in a country where the government has a monopoly on force? People usually call those “police states”.

    Finally we are coming up on April 19th, the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord. That day, irregular forces beat the best army in the world and chased them back to Boston.

    Molon Lave

  • Morbo:

    A little more. First of all, I live in Texas. I don’t generally drink beer (especially light beer) but when I do it is usually a microbrew like Fat Tire. I am college educated and work in the oil industry making a six-figure salary. And. believe it or not, my knuckles don’t drag on the gound when I walk.

    As far as your analogy to Iraq, look at the history of partisan troops operating against conventional forces. In WWII Russian partisans used Molotov cocktails to defeat German Panzers in street fighting. In Vietnam the VC fought us with inferior arms against our B52s. Look at Romania….Ceausescu had tanks and the military. Who won there?

    A determined grass-roots non-conventional force can defeat a well-armed conventional one, especially if that force believes in what it is doing and has the support of the general population.

    Molon Lave

  • For those of you here who are interested in the whole story regarding Jim Zumbo, here is a letter he wrote to the US Senate opposing banning assault weapons after he realized he had made a mistake.

    Also, I know there some who are hunters who do feel that assault weapons should be banned. Ever hear of “death by a thousand cuts”? Please don’t think that just because the gun-banners are not after your scoped Model 700 Remington Sendero .308 now that they won’t leave it alone for ever. It is basically the same as the M-24 sniper rifle used by the Marines (heavy barrel in .308) which you should know.

    “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin

    http://www.nraila.org//news/read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9177

    Afrikaner

  • Afrikaner,

    I wouldn’t threaten them with ‘taking over their Internet turf’ talk, if I were you … it just makes pro-gun proponents look even crazier to outsiders (myself included in that latter group).

    Just a bit of unsolicited advice,

    Kelli

  • Hi Morbo,

    You are very right about the “troll” problem on the Brady Campaign site. And I also liked your article (though Michael S. isn’t as bad as you might think ~ just a little arrogant, I’d say).

    There are many gun-nuts who congregate there, who are also a constant source of embarrassment & sick-to-your-stomach posts. But, if you haven’t just eaten anything recently, you might want to see more of their bizarre views on gun rights & gun control advocacy, as it’s a real eye-opener in terms of delusional thinking, at the following link: http://progunprogressive.com/?p=386.

    Have a good day,

    Kelli

  • Morbo,

    Do you have some evidence that the founding fathers intended anything besides “any bunch of clowns who can get their hands on some long rifles to have a constitutional right to take it upon themselves to march on Washington, kill or imprison our government leaders and install a new regime more to their liking”?

    Because my history book…well, it says this:

    ” –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–”

    That is found right under the title: The Declaration of Independence.

  • “Sorry to burst your bubble, Michael, but the romantic notion that a loose band of armed irregulars could spring into action at a moment’s notice to defend the liberties of the nation is a wet dream from a NRA gun-porn magazine.”

    Ever heard of Paul Revere, Morbo?

    No doubt there will be alot of clueless fools who come and read your crap, and think its just great. Unfotunately they will be just a little too daft to pick up on your sterotyping, and will fail to understand that you and your stupid Uncle Barney, and each of the fools themselves, are People.

    You know the People…We the People…Of the People, By the People, and for the People…the right of the People…Those People.

    The fools will believe down deep in their hearts that they are doing the right thing. Afterall, guns are bad…and dangerous to the public! The gunowners should be forced to give up a few rights!

    And the fools will never underestand that it is they themselves that are forfeiting their own rights, and their own safety, and their own future, because nobody told them that guns can be used to save lives.They just didn’t understand. All they were ever told was that your Uncle Barney was a stupid drunk, which apparently is hereditary.

    History is full of examples of bad things happening to Peoples too weak to fight and too ignorant to believe it could happen to them.

    Take your own advice: “Read a history book”!

  • I have to disagree strongly with the idea that a militia would have no success against a modern army. The idea shows a certain ignorance of military facts. Firstly, you mention things like tanks which are generally considered combat multipliers. They multiply your force projection capabilities. A citizen militia would also have it’s own force multipliers such as rifles that allow for standoff capability and use less amunition. There’s also the case of information warfare. Whereas the militia will have strong knowledge of the tactics of the army due to previous service, the army may or may not have knowledge of the tactical doctrine of the miltia. These are just a few quick examples of combat multipliers that I think could possibly edge a win onto the side of a militia. I didn’t even touch on the larger issues such as recruitment difficulties and logistics an army would face.

    That said, it’s rather well known that insurgencies don’t last as insurgencies for very long. They progress along a known scale towards becoming actual militaries. You can see that in action within Iraq currently. Within time you would have two well trained and equiped armies fighting one another. If one had better doctrine, or local support, or any other mitigating factor the scales could very easily tip towards the ascendent militia.

  • Hi Morbo,

    Returning to your comments regarding the NRA and also hunting-sports via assault weapons … I thought you might find this quotation of interest ~ it comes from “The American Gun,” by JJ. Maloney, and I’ve included it below.

    “The National Rifle Association (NRA), and other pro-gun groups, violently object to any law that would require current owners of assault rifles to give up those weapons. The NRA states that less than one percent of violent crime is committed by people using assault rifles.

    “An assault rifle is a high-capacity, military-style weapon, that has no real purpose in life other than to kill human beings. While the NRA might argue that owners of .223-caliber AR 15-type weapons, for example, can shoot prairie dogs with them, in reality, a bolt action rifle of the same caliber is more accurate. The same for larger caliber assault rifles. You might hunt a grizzly bear or a moose with an assault rifle, but it wouldn’t be very sporting. Any sportsman worth the name would use a large caliber, bolt action rifle, more suitable for big-game hunting — such as a .338 Winchester magnum, or a .340-Weatherby magnum, which are not only more accurate, but much more powerful –and will kill the animal quicker and more humanely.

    “Assault rifles spray a lot of bullets, very quickly, and this appeals to the little boy in a lot of gun owners. It also appeals to the militia types, who fantasize about the day they will take on the government … or the Russians … or the Chinese, or …”

    Best,

    Kelli

  • “JJ Maloney” sounds a lot like someone not familiar with hunting. Or shooting.

    And will you people stop calling semi-auto’s “assault rifles?” Select-fire weapons (firearms with actual full-automatic fire capability) are “assault weapons.” A Ruger 10/22 is not.

    Wonder what all this time and energy could do to stop violence instead of attacking/defending rights…?

    -Brian C.

  • J.J. Maloney was an award-winning (Pulitzer Prize) journalist who began “Crime Magazine.” He is deceased. One of his writings, The American Gun, takes a critical look at the gun culture, gun lobbyists, and gun control advocates.

    There also seems to be disagreements over the “definitions” of what exactly an assault weapon (& such variants) is & is not … this has been ongoing esp. from the pre- to post-1994 assault weapon ban issue/controversy. I don’t think such classifications will be decided by a single voice on the pro-gun side, IMO.

    Kelli

    • Comments are closed.