Drew Mariani, Carl Olson and I Yakked About Guns the Other Day

on Drew’s show. You can listen to the show on the Relevant Radio site.  Seems to have gone pretty well, with an emphasis on light rather than heat.  Carl and Drew are smart guys.

  • B-Rob

    Can’t get link to work.

  • Marthe Lépine

    Hint: Google Relevant Radio and you can find the discussion on their Web site.

  • ivan_the_mad
  • ivan_the_mad

    A very mature discussion, to be sure. I intuit that there exists a reasonable middle-ground of both/and rather than either/or. Sandy Hook’s murderer had mental health issues and access to guns, both of which will require some careful consideration in the public forum. Multi-faceted problems often require multi-faceted solutions. I also appreciated the nod to local culture and subsidiarity, since the solution for Sandy Hook may not work so well for other locales.

    • kenneth

      There is a LOT of reasonable middle ground. The NRA and Cuomo coalition are very determined that the American people never find it or even go looking for it.

  • Stu

    Nice discussion.

    Mark, I think you could bring more “light” than “heat” to your pages here as well on a topic like this simply by framing the debate a bit better. Your posts on this typically have as a starting point, seemingly opposing rhetorical positions that aren’t actually be put forth by the majority of your audience here who do have some issues with further gun control measures. Accordingly, any dissent from your stated position quickly becomes characterizes as not caring, nihilist, self-centered, idolatry towards the 2nd Amendment, etc, etc, etc.

    Perhaps if you pretended that we were “Carl Olsen” in our objections, discussion would be better. Now you can certainly point to other posters who don’t necessarily assume the best in you. Well, I can’t fix them. But I can ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt by you and others here.

    Break, break….
    I have to agree that the Koresh example isn’t a good one. Of course the authorities overwhelmed that guy. He was not a tactician, adopted a siege mentality from which there was no escape and was probably quite happy to be destroyed in such a way. It went with his theology.

    If we were truly in a bad situation, groups of able-bodied and armed men would be on the move and on the offensive. Many of these men would be former military and focused on an objective which creates motivation. Look up the Battle of Athens (Tennessee) as an example. A small army like that doesn’t win by doing toe-to-toe with a superior force. It wins a battle of fatigue and changing hearts and minds. Further, having a military that is so reliant on high technology is also an achilles heel. General Van Riper, USMC (Ret), taught the US military establishment a thing or two about that back in 2002.

    • Sus

      Who decides what bad situation needs armed men on the move and on the offensive?

      After reading all the comments here and other places regarding the discussion of gun control – not gun control, just the discussion of it, tells me that there are people who are lusting after the chance to use the weapons they have. I feel like they are looking for any excuse to start shooting.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        No, they are very much hoping that any such situation does not occur, but they are prepared and vigilant. Well, at least the ones I know. There could be some that are just looking for an excuse to start shooting.

      • Stu

        I can’t help your feelings. Nor will I try.

        But to your question, I’m confident that like-minded people will know if such a situation develops. Perhaps you should ask yourself what are your own personal limits to government control of you and your family that you would rebel?

        • B-Rob

          You know, that is an interesting question to ponder. What would cause a simultaneous action by a sizeable percent of the population to take up arms? For the people of Afghanistan/Iraq, that would be a foreign army coming to “free” them by setting up checkpoints and doing door-to-door house searches all the time. We already had one Civil War in this country (what caused it is subject to debate), but I’m not sure what would cause a second one (albeit in a different form).

          As for myself, I would only follow through with such an act if 1. the justification for a rebellion as outlined in the Catechism were met and 2. I saw others (rebelling military battalions/platoons/county SWAT teams) fighting. Also depends how close I was to the situation, for instance, are the Feds sending my relatives off to a concentration camp, or am I being unlawfully taxed to the point where I can’t feed my family? Also depends if I could do something else besides fight, such as run a rally or something more peaceful.

          These are all academic questions, btw. But it’s interesting to think about.

          • Stu

            That all sounds very reasonable. At the very least, a good baseline from which to judge a potential situation in the future. You can also add situation where law and order break down, such as after a natural disaster. In such a situation, you may be the only protection for your wife and children from rogue elements. This has certainly happened in recent history.

            Now admittedly I have a military mind given my background. I plan ahead and have contingencies for all manner of scenarios from the most benign to total chaos. It what I was trained to do as an officer. I encourage everyone to “war game” such things in their head.

            Firearms are and will continue to be part of that planning for me and I will fight against measures which unduly restrict that ability.

            • B-Rob

              Yeah I agree. I was thinking strictly in regards to using arms against government tyranny. But you could find “assault” weapons a very useful tool in society’s temporal breakdowns (LA Riots, Katrina, etc). I’m not sure if you can call them “common” but the chances of being caught in one is plausible.

        • SecretAgentMan

          Ah, the Gun-Control Two-Step!

          Variation A: “Nobody needs semiautomatic rifles to hunt ducks!” When someone replies that the Second Amendment is also about checking tyranny and preserving public order, reply, “You’re lusting for civil war, you Koresh-like nut-case!”

          Variation B: “School massacres can be prevented by wave-the-magic-wand gun-control!” When someone replies that evil can’t be abolished or controlled by law, reply, “Relying on the existence of evil is bad public policy! I believe we *can* solve our problems! You, on the other hand, have made a deal with Satan!”

          Variation C: “Here’s my magic-wand gun-control project: Make it illegal to shoot a gun on school grounds and, not only that, let’s make guns that won’t fire unless the police say they can!” When someone replies these are either unfeasible or useless, reply, “You’re lusting for civil war, you Koresh-like nut-case! And you’ve made a deal with Satan!”

          Variation D: “Anyone who opposes my reasonable magic-wand ideas is lusting for civil war and has made a deal with Satan!” When someone points out that this is, at most, a stereotype and caricature, reply, “You need to learn some lessons about reasoned discourse, bub! Of *course* no one’s suggesting that gun owners are lusting for civil war and have made a deal with Satan.”

          Gun control is one of the few areas of public debate where knowledge of the subject and common sense morally disqualifies somone from having a worthwhile opinion.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        That post speaks volumes, about you, and I thank you for posting it.

        My knowledge of shooting comes from a childhood of subsistence farming/hunting. My knowledge of firearms comes from my military service as a Firecontrolman in the US Navy. I haven’t gotten that feeling about anyone in this discussion.

        But then, I am operating from a position of knowledge and experience, not one of ignorance and naivete.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X