Some must-read guest editorials at War on Guns

I’ve said several times before that anyone who reads this blog, but doesn’t read War on Guns, has some pretty odd priorities–I appreciate the implicit compliment, but I haven’t earned it (not that I know if I actually have any such readers). One relatively new reason to be a regular reader of WoG is the superb guest commentary written by Mike Vanderboegh. His writing does a number on my blogging ego, but perhaps that’s a good thing.

He writes about the unintended consequences of so-called “gun control.” He writes about the irrational phobias of civilian disarmament advocates. He writes about those who would use religion to justify government mandated defenselessness. And today, he warns us of how enemies of freedom could render our guns useless.

These are not short essays, but if you’re like me, you’ll be left wanting more. If Mr. Vanderboegh ever gets a book deal, I’ll be clamoring for a copy.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Some must-read guest editorials at War on Guns”

  1. opaww Says:

    Another angle to the anti gun issue Nobel Privilege

    Many anti gunners who wish to restrict the private possession of guns, believe that it is the little person who needs the restrictions imposed on them and not the rich and/or famous. It has been held in many circles that the privileged/elite should be allowed their right to ownership of guns for their protection.

    We have seen in recent times where a city, county, or state has attempted to ban private gun ownership for the general populist under the guise of for our own good. But yet these same city, county, and states held that the rich and important should be armed. Effectively placing a value to people, based on wealth, power, or political standing in life. San commiecisco is one such city. Banning the handgun for its citizens except for political people like Diane Feinstein (1) who acquired a concealed carry weapons permit under the guise that she was worth more then the average citizen.

    This kind of exclusionary belief is referred to as Nobel Privilege. Oft times seen in countries with nobility as important persons. Usually believed that the cause of nobility was a direct proof of intelligence. Though America has no nobility nor recognizes nobility with in our own country the process still remains the same. We have replaced the nobility with famous people, the rich, and the political liches. Many people in America believe that a movie star is an automatic right of intelligence and what they say must be true sense they are famous.

    Nobel Privilege has its roots in the monarchy of England for the most part; sense it was believed that the nobility should still be allowed their ownership of firearms. At the same time outlawing the private ownership or possession by the common people. Even today the rich, and or nobles in England can and oft times do own firearms. The common person can by law acquire a firearm by legal means in England but the cost and legal challenges make it almost impossible.

    Many of the people that believe in the concept of Nobel Privilege assert that the privileged are the only ones who have the judgment to own and carry guns. Some how this prestigious title makes them far more responsible and knowledgeable then the normal citizen. If they were far more knowledgeable then the average citizen then they would know that Congress has not authority to ban any law abiding citizen from buying, possessing, and using weapons for there own purpose. They would also know that Congress could only by law control the commerce of weapons and not the right to bare arms. As is seen with the tax stamp on full auto weapons this does not restrict a law abiding citizen from owning one but places a tax on each sales and transfer to help curb unwanted people from having them. The amount of forms to fill out and the $200 for the transfer plus the back round check by the F.B.I. prohibits felons and criminals from legally obtaining one.

    The issues of Nobel Privilege, and there elitist right to self protection only leads to the belief that the common citizen is little more then meet on the hoof not worth much in ways of self preservation. Sense the courts have ruled that law enforcement is under no obligation to protect the individual citizen, but only the citizenry as a whole. The responsibility of self-protection falls to ones own self and in order for you to effectively do so you must be armed.

    Don’t be fooled by the Nobel Privilege, they will always be exempt from many things that other wise would put you and I in jail. Money and fame talks and every one else dies or goes to jail.

    Notes
    (1)http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm

    http://www.zpub.com/un/un-df.html

    When the handgun ban in San commiecisco took effect the news media filmed Diane Feinstein turning in her pistol. But after the cameras stopped rolling her bodyguard retrieved it and gave it back to her. (End of note 1)

    opaww

  2. 45superman Says:

    Yep, Opaww–so-called “gun-control” owes at least as much to elitism as it does to a desire for “public safety.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: