Living The Gun Life

[UPDATE] 2:

Comments now closed. Everything that could possibly be said has been said.

———————–

[UPDATE]:

As usual, the personal attacks have begun. I’ve allowed plenty of pro-gun folks to comment on this thread and share their ideas. I welcome reasonable conversation but if you’re going to be an asshole and attack me personally I’m going to close this comment thread.

———————–

I love sharing my thoughts about guns, gun violence, and gun policy. Without fail my blog gets trolled by gun loons, 99% of them the same folks — directed here by the same pro-gun blog — who have hated what I have to say since the Tennessee guns-in-bars bill that started this whole thing. They come over to my blog to whine about how I won’t let them trash me or my regulars with comment spam. Apparently the idea that shouting over everyone else is not conducive to a conversation is a completely foreign concept.

It’s thuggery, pure and simple: I know this because one of my regular trolls once promised to call off the dogs if I’d stop blogging about guns. I don’t like poking a stick at a hornet’s nest but I like being intimidated even less, so I’ll keep writing about stuff that strikes a nerve with me, gun loons be damned.

Back in August I was fascinated by Dan Baum’s CCW story in Harper’s: “Happiness is a worn gun: My concealed weapon and me.” Baum is a Boulder, Colorado-based avowed liberal, and also a CCW holder and gun enthusiast — many liberals are, contrary to conventional wisdom and what Fox News pundits and NRA newsletters say. (Of course, Fox and the NRA have a vested interest in dividing the country into “us” and “them,” so what do you expect?)

Before I go any further, let me tell my pro-gun readers that Baum’s piece is probably the best argument for guns, open-carry, shall-issue laws, etc. which I’ve ever read. (Hint to the gun loons: trolling liberal blogs acting like dicks does not exactly do your movement or your point of view much service. But I digress.)

I’ve been wanting to write about Baum’s piece since I read it back in August but every time I try I end up basically quoting the whole thing, because it’s so full of insight. Unfortunately, Harper’s is subscription only, so if you don’t subscribe you’ll have to find some other way of getting your hands on a copy.

The truth is, I have a lot of friends and family members — political liberals and Dem-leaning moderates — who like to shoot firearms and hunt. Heck, I met Mr. Beale at a shooting party. Yes, it’s true! Go figure.

That said, there’s a difference between my liberal gun friends and the ideological purists who deny guns pose any danger at all, who claim that all CCW permit holders are always responsible, and pretend that guns are as innocuous as Bic pens. I detect a cult-like mindset, something which comes up again and again when Baum writes about what he calls “living the gun life.”

Let’s start with Baum’s description of the handgun class he was required to take by Colorado law:

The classes I took taught me almost nothing about how to defend myself with a gun. One, taught by a man who said he refuses to get a carry permit because “I don’t think I have to get the government’s permission to exercise my right to bear arms,” packed about twenty minutes of useful instruction into four long evenings of platitudes, Obama jokes, and belligerent posturing. “The way crime is simply out of control, you can’t afford not to wear a gun all the time,” he told us on several occasions. We shot fifty rounds apiece at man-shaped targets fifteen feet away. The legal-implications segment was taught by a cop who, after warming us up with fart jokes, encouraged us to lie to policemen if stopped while wearing our guns and suggested that nobody in his right mind would let a burglar run off with a big-screen TV. It’s illegal to shoot a fleeing criminal, he said, “but if your aim is good enough, you have time to get your story straight before I [the police] get there.” Thank you for coming; here’s your certificate of instruction. The other class, a three-hour quickie at the Tanner Gun Show in Denver, was built around a fifteen-minute recruiting pitch for the NRA and a long-winded, paranoid fantasy about “home invasion.” “They’re watching what time you come home, what time do you get up to go to the bathroom, when you’re there, when you’re not,” said the instructor, Rob Shewmake, of the Florida company Equip 2 Conceal. “They know who lives in the house. They know where your bedroom is, and they’re there to kill you.” (Eighty-seven Americans were murdered during burglaries in 2008; statistically, you had a better chance of being killed by bees.)

These are Kool-Aid drinkers who, like Zach Wamp, appear to be so drunk on the fear porn we get 24/7 from the news media that you’d think they were the last defense between civilzation and utter mayhem. Even though violent crime has been dropping for years, apparently thieves, rapists and murderers lurk around every corner, ready to defile their daughters and steal their flat-screen TV.

Their paranoid vision of America is not one I share. “Living the gun life” appears to require being in a constant state of fear, mistrust, and paranoia, viewing your fellow citizens as potential threats, and ready to fight to the death for material objects that are not nearly as valuable as a human life–even the life of a criminal.

Fear is a potent drug, as bad as heroin or cocaine, and equally addictive. Of course this is what the gun loons are selling — a populace that isn’t in fear doesn’t need to arm itself, does it?

Baum continues:

Both classes were less about self-defense than about recruiting us into a culture animated by fear of violent crime. In the Boulder class, we watched lurid films of men in ski masks breaking into homes occupied by terrified women. We studied color police photos of a man slashed open with a knife. Teachers in both classes directed us to websites dedicated to concealed carry, among them usacarry.org, an online gathering place where the gun-carrying community warns, over and over, that crime is “out of control.”

In fact, violent crime has fallen by a third since 1989—one piece of unambiguous good news out of the past two decades. Murder, rape, robbery, assault: all of them are much less common now than they were then. At class, it was hard to discern the line between preparing for something awful to happen and praying for something awful to happen. A desire to carry a gun seemed to precede the fear of crime, the fear serving to justify the carrying. I asked one of the instructors whether carrying a gun didn’t bespeak a needlessly dark view of mankind. “I’m an optimist,” he said, “but we live in a world of assholes.”

At the conclusion of both classes, we students were welcomed into the gun-carrying fraternity as though dripping from the baptismal font. “Thank you for being a part of this, man. You’re doing the right thing,” one of the Boulder teachers said, taking my hand in both of his and looking into my eyes. “You should all be proud of yourselves just for being here,” said the police officer who helped with the class. “All of us thank you.” As we stood shaking hands, with our guns in our gym bags and holding our certificates, we felt proud, included, even loved. We had been admitted to a league of especially useful gentlemen and ladies.

Welcome to the gun cult! You are now in an exclusive, “special” group: defenders of freedom, liberty, chastity, and family. The fate of the Republic rests on your shoulders.

There’s more:

Just as the Red Cross would like everybody to be qualified in CPR, gun carriers want everybody prepared to confront violence—not only by being armed but by maintaining Condition Yellow. Hang around with people committed to carrying guns and it’s easy to feel guilty about lapsing into Condition White, to begin seeing yourself as deadweight on society, a parasite, a mediocre citizen. “You should constantly practice being in Condition Yellow all the time,” writes Tony Walker in his book How to Win a Gunfight. Of course, it’s not for everyone; the armed life in Condition Yellow requires being mentally prepared to kill. As John Wayne puts it in his last movie, The Shootist, “It’s not always being fast or even accurate that counts. It’s being willing.”

This is a classic cult mind-control device: to portray those who are in the cult as having special, privileged knowledge, an exclusivity or “elite” status. Those who are outside the cult are portrayed as lost souls, in extreme cases they are evil. It’s a separation of humanity into the privileged few and the “other.”

This cracked me up, but it also made me sad:

When I mention that I’m carrying, their faces light up. “Good for you!” “Right on!” “God bless you!” The owner of a gun factory in Mesa, Arizona, spotted the gun under my jacket and said, with great solemnity, “You honor me by wearing your gun to my place of business.”

You honor me? Dang. That’s some serious whack.

Fear is an effective tool; its opposite — certainty — is equally enticing. I don’t want to live in fear all of the time — I daresay most people don’t, but when you live in a world where fear messages are thrust at you nonstop, it’s a hard habit to quit. I’ve said more than once that if fear is what you’re selling, I ain’t buying.

Neither do I want certainty. Certainty looks appealing but it’s a chimera. There’s no such thing. Destiny turns on a dime, the world is a maze of gray. Black and white exists only in morality plays and fundamentalist religion.

The problem is, fear is what they’re selling. Baum writes about the state of high alert, the hyper-vigilance which comes with carrying a gun and being in what’s called “Condition Yellow.”

If I’m in a restaurant or store, I find myself in my own little movie, glancing at the door when a person walks in and, in a microsecond, evaluating whether a threat has appeared and what my options for response would be—roll left and take cover behind that pillar? On the street, I look people over: Where are his hands? What does his face tell me? I run sequences in my head. If a guy jumps me with a knife, should I throw money to the ground and run? Take two steps back and draw? How about if he has a gun? How will I distract him so I can get the drop? It can be fun. But it can also be exhausting. Some nights I dream gunfight scenarios over and over and wake up bushed. In Flagstaff I was planning to meet a friend for a beer, and although carrying in a bar is legal in Arizona, drinking in a bar while armed is not. I locked my gun in the car. Walking the few blocks to the bar, I realized how different I felt: lighter, dreamier, conscious of how the afternoon light slanted against Flagstaff’s old buildings. I found myself, as I walked, composing lines of prose. I was lapsing into Condition White, and loving it.

Condition White may make us sheep, but it’s also where art happens. It’s where we daydream, reminisce, and hear music in our heads. Hard-core gun carriers want no part of that, and the zeal for getting everybody to carry a gun may be as much an anti–Condition White movement as anything else—resentment toward the airy-fairy elites who can enjoy the luxury of musing, sipping tea, and nibbling biscuits while the good people of the world have to work for a living and keep their guard up. Gun guys never stop building and strengthening this like-minded community.

I don’t know if Baum was aware he is describing a cult, but he is.

I can’t imagine what living in this constant state of hypervigilance does to one’s psyche. It’s not healthy, and it’s certainly an effective way to exert cult-like influence over a group of people.

The last half of Baum’s article addresses the issue of gun policy. He makes some really interesting points. For example:

Shall-issue may or may not have contributed to the stunning drop in violent crime since the early Nineties. The problem with the catchy More Guns, Less Crime construction, though, is that many other things may have helped: changing demographics, smarter policing, the burnout of the crack-cocaine wave, three-strikes laws, even—as suggested by Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner—legalized abortion. And crime dropped more in some states that didn’t adopt shall-issue laws than in some that did.

But shall-issue didn’t lead to more crime, as predicted by its critics. The portion of all killing done with a handgun—the weapon people carry concealed—hasn’t changed in decades; it’s still about half. Whereas the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., can produce a list of 175 killings committed by carry-permit holders since 2007, the NRA can brandish a longer list of crimes prevented by armed citizens. I prefer to rely on the FBI’s data, which show that not only are bad-guy murders—those committed in the course of rape, robbery, and other felonies—way down but so are spur-of-the-moment murders involving alcohol, drugs, romantic entanglements, money disputes, and other arguments: the very types of murders that critics worried widespread concealed-carry would increase.

This is all good information but it’s not a compelling argument to me.

Here is what resonates with me:

When I called Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a cofounder of opencarry.org, he told me right away he thinks displaying a gun outside a presidential event is for “the Tea Party nutties.” He wants more people carrying handguns openly because “we want everybody to have that right.” Wearing guns openly so you can wear guns openly sounds to me like the old Firesign Theatre joke about the mural depicting the historic struggle of the people to finish the mural. Open-carry is already legal almost everywhere. But Stollenwerk said the movement is about changing culture rather than law. “We’re trying to normalize gun ownership by openly carrying properly holstered handguns in daily life,” he said.

And this is my objection. Baum provided an excellent window into “the gun life” and it’s not a life I want, or a community I want to call home. I don’t want the culture changed into this high-stress, hyper-vigilant “Condition Yellow.” I don’t want to be a member of your cult and the eroding of community standards it represents, where killing a fellow human being to defend your big screen TV is a virtue. I’d rather sip tea and nibble biscuits with the other airy-fairy elites. And if that’s something you want to do, then fine – I’m not an abolitionist, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask a few assurances. Like, for instance, that you’ve cleared a thorough background check, you have been thoroughly trained, and your permit is revoked if you’re an idiot like Debra Monce. Of course, these things are supposed to happen but we’ve seen what a joke this is. Because when you’re in gun cult country, where those who go unarmed are viewed as parasites and the man teaching the gun class refuses to get a carry permit on principle, such things are not just inconvenience, they are a downright threat.

Baum writes:

We may all benefit from having a lot of licensed people carrying guns, if only because of the heightened state of awareness in which they live. It’s a scandal, though, that people can get a license to carry on the basis of a three-hour “course” given at a gun show. State requirements vary, but some don’t even ask students to fire a weapon before getting a carry permit. We should enforce high standards for instruction, including extensive live firing, role playing, and serious examination of the legal issues. Since people can carry guns state to state, standards should be uniform. States should require a refresher course, the way Texas does, before renewing a carry permit. To their credit, most gun carriers I’ve talked to agree that training should improve, even if some of them get twitchy at the idea of mandates. The Second Amendment confers a right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer a right to instant gratification.

Baum said he’d probably stop wearing his gun. He missed “Condition White,” he felt it put up a barrier between he and his friends. It “militarized” his life and he didn’t like it. And I don’t like it either. I don’t want to live in a militarized community, just as Dan Baum didn’t want to live a militarized life.

Tennessee is a nice place to live. Nashville is a nice city. One always hears that it’s “a great place to raise a family.” Bringing guns into every school, church, restaurant, bar, park, etc. will change that spirit. And I don’t like it.

31 Comments

Filed under fear, gun control, gun violence

31 responses to “Living The Gun Life

  1. >Well said. I'm sure the Gunboyz SA will show up momentarily. I have said on numerous occasions that it's not guns that I have a problem with, it's ASSHOLES with guns–of which there are a far too large number.I have been told by a number of people that I live in a fool's paradise in thinking that I am "safe" without a gun. A life that requires a gun to be safe, in the town I live in (or any other town I have EVER lived in) is not a life I want. If it's that fucking dangerous, I'll move.

  2. >"Gun Thug 87" checking in.

  3. >I'm of divided minds about guns. I agree with the assertion that we absolutely must have them available to meet the ideological roots of the Constitution, but I've got no sympathy for most of the constantly restated ideology of gun enthusiasts. I want people to own guns, but a gun to shake the walls of the Republic isn't a handgun. I'd rather allow people assault rifles and machine-guns than have to worry about the consequences of handguns. Handguns are too convenient for crime, too casual. If you must kill something than a long arm is both more efficient and less likely to get shoved into the waistband of someone on their way to rob a liquor store. A guy with a rifle attracts attention – he puts people in the state of awareness of the danger he presents. A handgun is a coward's weapon in civilian hands and the token badge of a professional whose earned the right to carry one. As far as an armed revolution is concerned, a handgun is only good for assassins, the Constitutional equivalent of strapping bombs to your chest like a jihadist. You give them to cops instead of long arms because cops aren't supposed to be walking around shooting people, so they're given just the bare essentials of gun defense in a pistol.Anyways, that's my $.02.

  4. >Quick handgun class.Whatever you do, don't point a gun at anybody unless you want to kill them.If you're certain you wish to kill said person, just stand within ten to fifteen feet, point at the torso and let that bullet fly. (See standard safety lesson outlining the difference between pulling the trigger when the gun is cocked and loaded and just playing around with the gun.)Even if it doesn't kill, they will fall down and start writhing in pain. That's what guns do more or less.

  5. >Anonymous makes some interesting points but in this modern age, I don't think you need guns to shake the walls of the Republic. Hell, look what a bunch of guys armed with box cutters were able to accomplish! Look what the protesters in Iran were able to do with cell phones and Twitter.You can do far more harm to the Republic with a computer algorithm than an AK-47. Seriously, does anyone think the next revolution will take place by armed resistance, storming the walls of the castle? That's Cold War-era thinking. Silly nonsense forged in someone's fantasy.

  6. >I agree with Democommie. It seems to me that registration and all that sort of thing to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, criminals, and the like just makes sense.Of course, the thought of keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics scares someone like Linoge, but you gotta wonder about a guy who calls himself after the protagonist of a Stephen King novel and likes to play around with crappy armour and foam swords. Anyway, we won't shut up no matter how much they try to annoy us.

  7. >" Because when you’re in gun cult country, where those who go unarmed are viewed as parasites and the man teaching the gun class refuses to get a carry permit on principle, such things are not just inconvenience, they are a downright threat."I don't think the unarmed are "parasites" at all. Freedom of choice means you have the freedom to go unarmed. I take no issue with that whatsoever. What I take issue with is you attempting to force that lifestyle choice upon me.You don't want to carry? Cool, but leave the rest of us who choose to do so alone. You don't agree with Open carry? Fine. You're perfectly free to choose not to do so.What's wrong with refusing to get a CCW on principle? I commend him for standing up for his rights. If you have to ask for permission and pay for a government permission slip to carry a firearm then it is no longer a right that you're exercising.

  8. >Anonymous makes a very good argument, but I really don't want my mom to have to lug around assault weapons just to defend herself.Handguns: perfect for assassins, cowards, and um, grandmothers.

  9. >And I don't like itYou're not obligated to LIKE it when your fellow Americans exercise their rights.You are obligated to RESPECT their freedom to do so.And of course in places where that right is infringed upon (See MD, IL, DC etc.) guns are still being carried into all those places you don't think they should be. The only difference is that only criminals are carrying.

  10. > If you have to ask for permission and pay for a government permission slip to carry a firearm then it is no longer a right that you're exercising.Excuse me but that's just bullshit. I have to get a permit if I want to hold a rally. If I start my own church I have to prove to the government that it's legit if I want my IRS benefits. Free speech is limited in all sorts of ways, by the "free hand of the market" which owns all of the billboard space to the moralists who shout "porn" if you show a picture of two men kissing.It's these same tired old arguments we've heard a thousand times. As Baum wrote, the Second Amendment doesn't give you a right to instant gratification.

  11. >"If I start my own church I have to prove to the government that it's legit if I want my IRS benefits.And yet if you wanted to sit on a park bench in a burqa and read the Koran you could do so without paying a fee for a government permission slip.In many states I have to pay a fee & ask permission to sit on that same bench and sip my latte with a Sig on my hip.You also don't need to pay a fee, get a permit and receive "training" before writing on this blog. Would you be willing to apply the restrictions we have on bearing arms to blogging? Somehow I think you'd view it as an infringment since then it'd restrict a behavior you agree with and engage in.

  12. >Actually I DO have to pay a fee to write this blog, it's called the monthly fee I pay my ISP and I need to own a computer AND then there's a handy little button at the top of the blog that says "Report Abuse" where I can be reported for violating Google's Terms Of Service.I personally haven't violated Google's Terms of Service (yet) but I wonder how much longer my blog would stay up if I changed the content to something more offensive?I suppose I could stand on a street corner carrying a sandwich board, but again if the content of my message was deemed offensive I would be hauled away in a matter of minutes. Heck, a Kerry-Edwards button and anti-war placard got people arrested in Iowa during a Bush visit. And please don't mention the Muslim thing to me. That's laughable. I live in Tennessee, where we are embroiled in huge lawsuit over whether a mosque can be built in Murfreesboro. And Ground Zero's Park 51 project? Hello?How ironic that some of the same people who are hollering to be allowed to take their guns wherever they want are the same ones trying to deny Muslims the right to build a place of worship on land THEY OWN.

  13. >How ironic that some of the same people who are hollering to be allowed to take their guns wherever they want are the same ones trying to deny Muslims the right to build a place of worship on land THEY OWN. These gunclingers banging the drum about nonexistent creeping shariah believe in Christians-only buildings and Muslim-free public spaces. If they thought they could get away with segregation on the basis of religion, they'd try it. No wonder they get nervous at their fantasies of creeping sharaiah; it competes with their own version.

  14. >In Driver's Ed back around 1980, I was taught IPDE–Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute. Identify a potential situation, predict what might happen next, decide what to do if it does, and if necessary Execute your plan. Basic defensive driving–don't tailgate, keep enough awareness of traffic so that if you need to maneuver you already know which way to go, avoid being in dangerous places like the blind spot of a semi longer than necessary. If you see a ball roll into the street, plan for a child to follow. If you see someone in the rear-view mirror weaving in and out of traffic, plan for him to cut you off when he passes. Condition yellow is not some mystical hyper-vigilant state when carrying a gun, it is basically the same 'Identify' step of IPDE I was taught in driver's ed, expanded to life in general. Scan your surroundings, avoid being shocked when something reasonably foreseeable happens, and have tentative plans when appropriate. Like the driver's ed version applies to motorcycles and pedestrians too, Condition Yellow applies to the unarmed as well as the armed. I strongly suspect that Baum specifically looked for the most extreme instructor he could find, then exaggerated for effect. I have taken 2 CCW classes, audited a third, and read countless detailed reviews for local instructors. I've never heard anything even close to Baum's experience.

  15. >I have taken 2 CCW classes, audited a third, and read countless detailed reviews for local instructors. I've never heard anything even close to Baum's experience.I'll 2nd that. Although I've only taken one CCW class, it was nothing like what Baum described.

  16. >These gunclingers banging the drum about nonexistent creeping shariah believe in Christians-only buildings and Muslim-free public spaces. Really? You sound pretty intolerant. Also, that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.

  17. >You can do far more harm to the Republic with a computer algorithm than an AK-47.Probably, but people championing their Right to Bear Arms for purposes of armed resistance to tyranny want the visceral experience of shooting their fellow citizens in a Civil War. The Constitution supports that, rightly or wrongly, so I'm not terribly upset with giving them that option as long as it's not a gateway for the sort of lame, stupid criminal gun violence that you also get with handguns.I'm not suggesting that criminals will suddenly not use guns if handguns become scarce, but that it more clearly identifies the criminal and the response: "Look, he's got a pistol – he's up to no good unless he's also got a badge. That guy with the rifle is shooting people, so I don't need to worry about a staged response. I can shoot him dead as soon as I'm able."As for grandmothers needing pistols, if your grandmother can't heft a heavier weapon then I'm not sure I care to expose the public to her shooting skills in a panic situation. Get her a taser or some pepper spray. If she wants to tear down the walls of the Republic, put her in some computer literacy classes like Southern Beale suggests. Hell, mount the big gun on her grandma car. At least everyone will be able to identify the risk presented by your grandmother more or less automatic with the presence of the risk."Crazy grandma has a turret. Good to know, I'll park in the spot in the next lane."

  18. >What it boils down to…..“Living the gun life” appears to require being in a constant state of fear, mistrust, and paranoia, viewing your fellow citizens as potential threats, and ready to fight to the death for material objects that are not nearly as valuable as a human life–even the life of a criminal."Well said. Just addicts viewing the whole universe thru a rifled barrel. Too far down the rabbithole to see daylight anymore, they've convinced themselves and the other gun troglodytes that common sense and decency are foolish dangerous weaknesses. Fear, real or imagined, does things to people. Otherwise decent folks who might extend their hand in friendship now find themselves gritting their teeth, clutching a gun and wetting their pants in their personal world of 24/7 unabated terror. Imagine a world where you put down the gun and open your hand instead? Or are the gun fanatics simply too cowardly to man up and do the right thing?

  19. >Thanks for the reference and the discussion.Georgia does not require a class to obtain a concealed carry permit, which is called Georgia Weapons Carry License/formerly the Georgia Firearms License (GFL). Basically one has to pass an FBI background check and pay ~$75. I'm one of those Southern Liberals who is also a proponent of gun rights. I'd quibble with one characterization in your post: the “ideological purists” aren’t the ones who deny guns pose any danger. They’re deniers. And in some case circle-jerk perpetuated self-delusionals. They’re also usually folks who can’t tell the difference between correlation and causation. Imo, they often perceive gun rights as an entitlement rather than as a right that inherently also carries responsibilities when one exercises that right.Guns are powerful. Guns can cause grave bodily damage (among other things) disproportionately to other instruments. That’s one of the main reasons why they’re useful. And that’s why possession of such items can be threatening to those in power (to host of folks from King George’s men to abusive spouses) and is a right to be protected. With the exercise of such a right comes responsibililty.An "ideological purist," imo, recognizes that a right may result in (increased) risk but places a higher value on protection of the ability to exercise that right. To an "ideological purist," the value of the right outweighs the risk, and there is no need to rationalize the right by denying the risk.

  20. >I think everyone should pick up a copy of the August Harper's and read Dan Baum's entire article … as I said in my post my temptation was to quote the entire thing because the article was so good. Obviously I couldn't do that. If you don't subscribe, maybe the local library carries it, or you can buy a single copy.

  21. >Actually I DO have to pay a fee to write this blog, it's called the monthly fee I pay my ISP and I need to own a computer …And not one bit of that involves begging the government for permission to blog or, if they deign to agree to let you do so, paying for their permission slip.Did you intentionally miss the point?… AND then there's a handy little button at the top of the blog that says "Report Abuse" where I can be reported for violating Google's Terms Of Service.I personally haven't violated Google's Terms of Service (yet) but I wonder how much longer my blog would stay up if I changed the content to something more offensive?Google's terms of service do not have the force of law. You cannot be jailed – or shot – for violating them. The worst that can happen is Google will close your account.All you need to do if you want to be more offensive is find a blog provider that won't object to your content, or put up your own server and blog software where you can post anything you like without worrying about ToS restrictions.And none of that involves government permission or licensing. Strike two.Free speech is limited in all sorts of ways, by the "free hand of the market" which owns all of the billboard space to the moralists who shout "porn" if you show a picture of two men kissing.Which also do not involve government permission or licensing. Strike three.Heck, a Kerry-Edwards button and anti-war placard got people arrested in Iowa during a Bush visit.You know, I think you're actually agreeing with us on the fundamental point here. You don't think it's proper for someone peaceably exercising a fundamental Right to be hassled and arrested? That's exactly what we're saying.

  22. >Which also do not involve government permission or licensing. Strike three.Nonsense. Government permission and licensing is required to operate a radio or television station. Ditto with permits required to hold rallies and parades. And saying one simply needs to "find a blog provider that won't object to your content" is laughable. If you live in the real world you know such things are limited. Hell, with the privatization kick the country is on we're all beholden to our corporate overlords — look at places like Colorado City, shuttering public libraries and everything else with the word "public" in front of it in the interest of precious low taxes. So much for hitting the library computers to update my blog, by necessity I'd have to do business with AT&T, Bellsouth or some other corporation. I might get lucky where I live and have a local ISP but it's only a matter of time before one of the behemoths swallow them up.You're right, one would think there would be areas where the left and Libertarian, civil liberties-loving right could agree but we never seem to get there.

  23. >The "free hand of the market" is not the same as government licensing. Having to pay to put up a billboard or pay for Internet service in order to interact with your target audience is fundamentally different from having to ask the government for permission and pay for a license to speak in the first place, and risk arrest and punishment if you attempt to speak without that permission and without that license.And saying one simply needs to "find a blog provider that won't object to your content" is laughable. If you live in the real world you know such things are limited.Again, that's not due to government acting to restrict what you can say. I'm sure that if you're willing to pay you can find a blog hosting service that will let you say almost anything you like. And if you want to say something actionable that might get a provider sued (thus making them reluctant to host you), you can take the liability upon yourself and set up and manage your own server to host the blog – hiring someone to manage it for you if you aren't technically inclined – and say whatever you like without worrying about pesky Terms of Service.There is no government permission or licensing involved, even though there are costs involved. Freedom of Speech does not mean anyone is obliged to provide you with a forum free of charge. The government won't step in until you use that freedom to commit a crime – for example, inciting violence or committing libel.Would you object if you had to pass a government test and pay a government licensing fee before being able to post to your blog? Would you consider that to be free exercise of a Fundamental Right?

  24. >The "free hand of the market" is not the same as government licensing. I realize that, my point was that as we increasingly privatize things we are in fact giving up civil liberties because we put what was once publicly owned into the hands of private corporations. Civil rights can be repressed by groups other than the government, and no one on the right seems to care.The fact remains, every civil right has strings attached. Voting is a right, but you have to be a certain age, you need to register. There are people who would try to deny the right to vote to people who don't speak English, or not well enough to understand ballot measures. 100 years ago I wouldn't have been allowed to vote. People in D.C. still can't vote in most elections and they don't have representation in Congress. In some states people on probation or on parole can't vote. Millions of ex-felons who have completed their sentences can't vote, and petitioning to get your civil rights restored is a complicated and expensive process, effectively disenfranchising the poor.Free speech is a right but if you say something is "fucking incredible" when accepting your Golden Globe award, or interview someone on the radio who is supposedly having sex, or show your bedazzled titty during the Super Bowl half time show, the FCC says that violates community decency standards and will fine the licensee. So you better not say it/do it.Here's something else I don't get. How come the civil libertarians didn't say one peep when the government colluded with AT&T, Verizon and the rest to read peoples' e-mails, or the Obama Administration orders the CIA to kill Anwar al-Awlaki — a U.S. citizen — without charges, without trial, without any of the Constitutional protections U.S. citizens are supposed to have as their birthright? How come?

  25. >Hmmm…. Gun loon tackles and holds down Lauren Valle as she's exercising her right of free speech in peaceful protest … so his buddy can stomp on her head.

  26. >Civil rights can be repressed by groups other than the government, and no one on the right seems to care.There's different solutions depending on who is doing the repressing. I avoid businesses that needlessly post 'no guns' signs. Wouldn't go to a business that refused service to blacks or gays, either. Millions of ex-felons who have completed their sentences can't vote, and petitioning to get your civil rights restored is a complicated and expensive process, effectively disenfranchising the poor.Nor can they have their gun rights restored, even if their crimes aren't violent. the FCC says that violates community decency standards and will fine the licensee. So you better not say it/do it.I don't particularly want to hear fuck over normal radio, even though sometimes I specifically seek out uncensored media–but it is silly to get as worked up over it as the FCC does, especially when it is coverage of events rather than deliberate acts of the broadcasters. I would like much more clear and consistent rules from all the various federal commissions and agencies with regulatory authority. How come the civil libertarians didn't say one peep when the government colluded with AT&T, Verizon and the rest to read peoples' e-mails, or the Obama Administration orders the CIA to kill Anwar al-Awlaki Only certain rights, under approved circumstances are civil liberties. If Obama did it, it must be right. I certainly heard screams about both of those things from the blogs I read…Gun loon tackles and holds down Lauren Valle I like Sebastian's take on this:"I don’t care if your issue is saving puppies, I’d estimate at least 5 to 15% of your fellow activists are complete assholes."

  27. >Sorry to come so late to this party, but I liked what you ahd to say about that article. I blogged about it too, it provided plenty of material.You're absolutely right about the nasty commenters. I'm sure some of the ones you delete are as bad as what I receive (and delete), so I understand and agree with you.

  28. AM

    >You can do far more harm to the Republic with a computer algorithm than an AK-47. Seriously, does anyone think the next revolution will take place by armed resistance, storming the walls of the castle? That's Cold War-era thinking. Silly nonsense forged in someone's fantasy. So you are saying that we should have mandatory background checks for all computer purchasers? And that the public use of laptops can be denied at the whim of local law enforcement?If computers are so dangerous why are they COMPLETELY unregulated? I can go down to a Best Buy and purchase as many as I can afford with no background checks, take them home, load up a live CD of Linux and start siphoning bandwidth through unsecured wireless access points to attack vulnerable networks (hint, they are all vulnerable).Surely you want to make a different comparison? Maybe cars? But wait, once again I can buy as many cars on any day with no waiting period, only limited by my own finances. Oh wait…

  29. >AM seems to be completely unaware of cyberterrorism, the Patriot Act, the FBI's monitoring of the internet, Robert Mueller's "Einstein" internet monitoring program, etc.You gun loons bore me. Always the same ol' crap. Meanwhile, you claim to be so concerned about your constitutional rights yet one of your open carry proponents in Kentucky tackled a a protestor exercising her right to free speech. I guess some rights are more important than others.

  30. >yet one of your open carry proponents in Kentucky tackled a a protestor exercising her right to free speech. I guess some rights are more important than others.And he is being charged with assault, as he should be if the events unfolded as it appears they did.He will have to be proven guilty through due process though, something you anti-gunners are firmly against.

  31. >Thank GOD that asshole in Kentucky, who claims he was trying to "protect Rand," wasn't carrying his crutch, er I mean gun, when he tackled Lauren Valle. Mr. Junior Vigilante could have killed her in his zeal to "protect" someone armed only with a protest sign.