What Does It Mean to “Vote Guns?”

 

shutterstock_435657658Decades and decades ago, to be a gun owner meant you were a hunter. You lived in a rural area and you used your rifle or shotgun to put the wonders of God’s creation onto your dinner table. The guns you used in pursuit of this goal were classics like the Savage 99 or an Ithaca double-barreled shotgun. The prevalence and the simplicity of the guns used in hunting meant that when the Roosevelt administration thought it would be a good idea to severely restrict certain kinds of firearms as part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, gun owners didn’t complain that much because the guns that were being restricted weren’t in common use.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in the wake of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and others, and in an attempt to counter the rising tide of violence in the inner cities. Gun ownership was changing: hunting was still popular, but more and more people were living in urban areas, and gun owners now understood that criminals preferred their victims unarmed. In the decade that followed the Gun Control Act, gun owners suffered through more restrictive changes in local and state gun laws, culminating in Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

Gun owners, and especially a revitalized and reorganized NRA, had had enough. They mobilized get-out-the-vote efforts and turned up the volume of their lobbying efforts to the point where today, the Democratic nominee for President considers the NRA and Republicans to be her biggest enemies.

That’s right — Hillary Clinton considers her fellow Americans to be her biggest enemy. Let that sink in for a minute.

Hillary does not believe that Americans should own semiautomatic rifles (guns she refers to as “assault rifles”) and has stated that the Australian model of gun control is something “worth looking at.” The Australian model of gun control is simple and easy to understand: Register all the semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, along with any and all handguns, and then force gun owners to turn their private property over to the government when the government decides it’s in your best interest to do so.

Why? Because she, and many politicians like her, believe that the right to keep and bear arms is something that only belongs to government. She believes that the Supreme Court got DC v. Heller wrong and that people do not have right of armed self-defense. She believes that protecting families is the function of government, not individuals. We, the people, cannot be trusted with the means to protect ourselves, that’s the responsibility of others.

In Hillary’s world, it takes a village to protect us idiots.

Hillary believes, as do many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, that the basic fundamental right of protecting yourself is not your duty, it’s the government’s duty. This quote from New Jersey Assembly Majority Leader Louis Greenwald (D) is particularly revealing: “Issuing concealed carry permits to every pizza delivery boy in the state won’t make us any safer as a community.”

Speaking as a former pizza delivery boy in one of Phoenix’s roughest neighborhoods, I’d have much preferred to knock on a door in south Phoenix with a 9mm in a holster along with the large Meat Lover’s in my hands and $40 in small bills in my change bag. However, because Arizona did not have the “shall issue” concealed carry legislation that Mr. Greenwald derides, I had to go unarmed and defenseless as I carried out my deliveries. Fortunately, I was not robbed during my brief career in pizza delivery, but others have not been so lucky.

Voting guns means you reject the idea that only the people whom the government trusts should be armed. It means you understand that protecting what matters to you most is your job, not the government’s. It means you understand that no matter how efficient a police state is, bad things are going to happen to good people. Moreover, it means understanding that if a politician does not support that basic right of individual self-defense, they do not support the other individual rights either.

The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is a litmus test about how a candidate feels about the role government should play in your life. It’s not about “allowing” you to hunt or shoot competitions, it’s about not relying on government to define how you and your loved ones will be protected from the evil that is in this world. Voting guns is voting for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Vote as if your life depended on it, because maybe it does.

Published in Guns
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    When they figure out how to disarm the criminals, we can at least have a conversation. Meanwhile, I’ll hold on to my Ruger.

    • #1
  2. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    And my Browning, my Colt, my Anschutz, my Henry, my H&R, my Marlin……

    • #2
  3. DoubleFacePalm Member
    DoubleFacePalm
    @

    Has anyone noticed that the government does not seem to make any effort to disarm criminals, except to give them bigger sentences after they committed the crime?

    • #3
  4. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    God made man. Sam Colt made men equal.

    • #4
  5. Teresa Mendoza Inactive
    Teresa Mendoza
    @TeresaMendoza

    Kevin Creighton: if a politician does not support that basic right of individual self-defense, they do not support the other individual rights either.

    Awesome. I am stealing this.

    • #5
  6. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    You are more of an expert then I Kevin, but I was under the impression that pistols were popular not only in rural areas, but cities as well. My Father has my Great Aunt’s .32 that she supposedly carried around during the whole “flapper” thing.

    Were pistols not that popular in urban areas? I was under the impression that most people had them back than. Especially with old combat veterans at the very least having old “war trophies” they carried around from time to time.

    I do know that Bat Masterson had his revolver taken away from him in NYC when he was arrested in 1902. He wasn’t arrested for carrying a pistol though, just over a  misunderstanding, the cops thought he was a gambler who conned a wealthy man from Utah out of some money. It’s said Bat was furious about the local cops taking his revolver, because it was the one he used in the old days telling them to “take care of what you do with my gun it’s the most famous thing you’ll ever touch.” Once they figured out who he was they gave it back to him, and he continued carrying it from that day forward.

    He was Bat Masterson though so maybe it wasn’t as common as I believed, still I thought it was fairly common for people to be armed in urban areas back in the day.

    • #6
  7. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Kevin Creighton: The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is a litmus test about how a candidate feels about the role government should play in your life. It’s not about “allowing” you to hunt or shoot competitions, it’s about not relying on government to define how you and your loved ones will be protected

    It’s also not about government defining for us our purpose or motive in having weapons.  That’s a definition only the individual can make legitimately.

    Full stop.

    Eric Hines

    • #7
  8. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Susan Quinn: When they figure out how to disarm the criminals, we can at least have a conversation.

    No, we can’t.  Not unless I’m the one who’ll define what’s a criminal act, and additionally not unless I’m the one who’ll define who’s a criminal.

    Eric Hines

    • #8
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Eric Hines: No, we can’t. Not unless I’m the one who’ll define what’s a criminal act, and additionally not unless I’m the one who’ll define who’s a criminal.

    Works for me!

    • #9
  10. Trinity Waters Inactive
    Trinity Waters
    @TrinityWaters

    Susan Quinn:When they figure out how to disarm the criminals, we can at least have a conversation. Meanwhile, I’ll hold on to my Ruger.

    A conversation about exactly what?  Betcha ten bucks I can solidly refute your answer.

    • #10
  11. Tim Inactive
    Tim
    @TimCarter

    That the government would want to limit our right to bear arms is not a surprise. That our fellow citizens would be so eager to do so is.

    • #11
  12. Kevin Creighton Contributor
    Kevin Creighton
    @KevinCreighton

    Tyler Boliver: Were pistols not that popular in urban areas? I was under the impression that most people had them back than.

    They were, but keep in mind that until quite recently, most U.S. citizens lived in rural areas, not urban areas.

    • #12
  13. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    Kevin Creighton:

    Tyler Boliver: Were pistols not that popular in urban areas? I was under the impression that most people had them back than.

    They were, but keep in mind that until quite recently, most U.S. citizens lived in rural areas, not urban areas.

    I understand that. My only point is that I don’t think it exactly true that being a gun owner used to just mean you were a hunter. I grant you that hunting was more popular  a hundred years ago, and I’m sure many “city slickers” enjoyed hunting. Maybe this is just a disagreement of inches, but I don’t know how true the idea that it was mainly hunters who owned guns, and because of that gun owners didn’t “complain”.

    I think people were fine with FDR’s NFA of 34 mostly because of the gang wars that came about because of Prohibition. It was mostly “gang related” arms that were targeted, and people saw it as a way to bring these elements under heel more. Especially since FDR specifically didn’t target pistols in the end which most private citizens would carry for self defense, instead of carrying say a sawed off shotgun/rifle. Nor was the original law written that only the state could register, citizens could register back then.

    Maybe I’m wrong though, as I said I’m far from an expert. Just a hobbyist with both arms and history. I don’t make a living with either.

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Trinity Waters: A conversation about exactly what? Betcha ten bucks I can solidly refute your answer.

    Maybe we’d just talk about how ridiculously wrong they are. Wanna refute that ? ;-)

    • #14
  15. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    While the right to self defense may be a better political strategy to defend the 2nd Amendment, the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the same as the 1st amendment – as a defense against tyranny. Governments try to restrict the right of their citizens (subjects) to speak out and be armed as a check on rebellion. Because the United States was born out of rebellion it was only natural to protect those rights. This is why the “well regulated militia” language is in the 2nd amendment. Militias are distinct from armies as they are made up of free citizens defending their own communities, not troops conscripted and paid by the government. i.e. The loyalty in a militia is to their fellow citizens not the government.

    As far as I am concerned, individual citizens or groups of citizens should have the right to own any military arms – yes including planes, ships, tanks, and bombs. Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are different as we have signed treaties restricting the possession of these weapons.

    • #15
  16. TheRoyalFamily Member
    TheRoyalFamily
    @TheRoyalFamily

    Susan Quinn:When they figure out how to disarm the criminals, we can at least have a conversation. Meanwhile, I’ll hold on to my Ruger.

    carcat74:And my Browning, my Colt, my Anschutz, my Henry, my H&R, my Marlin……

    Unfortunately all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident in some random lake that I don’t remember anymore.

    • #16
  17. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    I used to feel very confident that there was just no way the government could take our guns.  It just could not really happen.  And even in recent years, the big surge in gun sales,after any incident that made people think Prez Omega might try a gun grab, was reassuring.

    But…now people seem to be such wimps in our country.  They want to give up control over their own lives.  They consider any reference to Second Amendment rights to be equivalent to a terroristic threat.  “Guns ‘n religion” as Omega (incredibly!) got clean away with sneering  in 2008, are the refuge of the ignorant Americans who “give in to fear”.  (As if the gov’t is actually doing its job of keeping citizens safe?)   They’re going to vote for Clinton–or stay home and not vote for Trump, the crack shot and Second Amendment supporter.   I’m so disappointed.  I’m not sure where I’m living any more.

    • #17
  18. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I already know liberal friends that are selling off their gun collection to get value before the HRC confiscation program they expect once she is elected.  It’s coming.

    • #18
  19. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Z in MT: As far as I am concerned, individual citizens or groups of citizens should have the right to own any military arms – yes including planes, ships, tanks, and bombs.

    I think that blurs the line between arms and ordnance.  Arms were weapons readily carried and operated by individual men, whereas ordnance included large explosives, cannon, artillery, and crew serviced weapons.

    • #19
  20. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    It’s the first issue I think about.

    • #20
  21. John Hanson Thatcher
    John Hanson
    @JohnHanson

    The first right to vanish under Hillary will be the 2nd amendment, revised by a compliant Supreme Court to mean any individual may carry a firearm, if the government decides to allow it for a particular purpose in a particular area, and otherwise, the gun shall remain under government lock and key, not under the control of the individual (Words in the constitution do not need to change, only the interpretation by the “nine” on the court.

    The second will be the first amendment which will be warped in the same fashion so it means that the government in the form of one or more government review boards that will have to bless all speech as not being “hate speech” or any speech that makes anyone “Uncomfortable” prior to publishing.  The view will be only the government can enhance our speech rights by ensuring only speech that helps our fellow Americans (definition of help) qualifies as “free”.  This will apply to newspapers, bloggers, and all other forms of journalistic speech as well. Precedent? It won’t matter once there are 5 ideologues on the court.

    Tenth amendment?  We already mostly ignore that one, and when she is done, it will mean states have the enumerated rights the federal government allows them to have, and all other rights are reserved to the “People” in the form of the Federal government, See words do not need to change, just redefine “People” to mean the Federal government acting in their interest!  Of course this flips the understanding of most of us, but so what, we already removed any practical limitations on Federal power in the last 80 years or so, so all we have to do now, is ensure that the states can only do what the Federal government lets them do, and a redefinition of the meaning of people is about all that has to happen to ensur that.

    In due time, all the other rights we thought we had in the Bill of Rights, will be changed in a similar fashion, to mean our rights will be what the currently in power executive, backed by the court say they mean, a true tyranny of the court.

    She won’t admit any of this happens, they in an Orwellian fashion will just redefine what we can express by changing the language and terms we use to discuss it.

    • #21
  22. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    Hey, I just read that now, 44% of Americans now have a gun at home! That’s like, 140 million of us!   Mrs. Bill has no problem “regulating” 140 million people–yet locating and taking action against 11 million illegals, most of whom have published their whereabouts to gov’t agencies like the IRS or DPW, is an insoluble problem?

    And that points out the problem with registration of guns.  That has always been the first step to confiscation.

    if you don’t have a citizenry capable of resistance as a last resort–you don’t have a free society.

    • #22
  23. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Z in MT: Because the United States was born out of rebellion it was only natural to protect those rights. This is why the “well regulated militia” language is in the 2nd amendment. Militias are distinct from armies as they are made up of free citizens defending their own communities, not troops conscripted and paid by the government. i.e. The loyalty in a militia is to their fellow citizens not the government.

    This is helpful, @Z in MT—immediately, my mind flashed to the Cajun Navy of the Baton Rouge Flood…  it’s not difficult to picture those citizens  coming together to rescue victims of violence and defend the community against a violent mob. (In fact, as I proudly recall, one of our Baltimore Ricochetti responded in this way during the riots).

    Relatively few people these days have any experience of violence other than what they see on TV. This is, by the way, a very nice thing. But if you haven’t been exposed to violence—haven’t hunted, seen animals slaughtered for food or done the killing yourself, served in combat, been the victim of a violent crime or been in a few bar fights at least— you have no idea what violence is actually like;how quickly violence can erupt, for example, and how swift and merciless an attacker can be, how immune to reason or pity.  Or how completely and horribly helpless you are when an attacker is physically stronger than you are.

    As I say, our ignorance is an indicator that ours is a pretty darned peaceful society, and we should be grateful. But it makes it difficult for “normal” people to interpret violent events, or to grasp why police officers can’t shoot to wound, why “legitimate grievances” are not justifications for riots and why calling 911 can’t save your life from the Omar Mateens of the world.

    Moreover, most Americans are lucky enough to never experience the government as violent. For most, being pulled over for speeding is the only time we catch the merest whiff of what it means to say that the government has the monopoly on the use of force. Most do not enjoy, and indeed resent the experience, but it only takes ten minutes, and we don’t connect-the-dots between the humiliating powerlessness of the traffic stop and the potential for totalitarian oppression.

    • #23
  24. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Mark Wilson:

    Z in MT: As far as I am concerned, individual citizens or groups of citizens should have the right to own any military arms – yes including planes, ships, tanks, and bombs.

    I think that blurs the line between arms and ordnance. Arms were weapons really carried and operated by individual men, whereas ordnance included large explosives, cannon, artillery, and crew serviced weapons.

    I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that draws this distinction.  Never mind that a not inconsiderable number of cannons used in our Revolutionary War were privately owned.  Similarly for a fair number of our combat ships.

    Eric Hines

    • #24
  25. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    Fake John/Jane Galt:I already know liberal friends that are selling off their gun collection to get value before the HRC confiscation program they expect once she is elected. It’s coming.

    Are they crazy?  Those guns will be MUCH more valuable after confiscation is initiated…..

    • #25
  26. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Eric Hines: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that draws this distinction.

    Of course the definitions of the words used in the Constitution are not included in the Constitution itself.  I’m referring to the meaning in common usage of the word “arms” at the time. I know there is disagreement on that point but I’m expressing my opinion.  Here one example.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

    • #26
  27. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Mark Wilson:

    Eric Hines: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that draws this distinction.

    Of course the definitions of the words used in the Constitution are not included in the Constitution itself. I’m referring to the meaning in common usage of the word “arms” at the time. I know there is disagreement on that point but I’m expressing my opinion. Here one example.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

    From the 10th ed of Johnson’s Dictionary, contemporaneous in the American colonies at the time our Constitution (not the British unwritten one) was written: Arms: Weapons of offense, or armour of defense.  And Fire-Arms: Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns.  These are the meanings in common usage at the time.  And as the Supreme Court has ruled, we must use the ordinary meaning of the words.  The Courts cannot (although it too often does, erroneously) amend the Constitution from the bench by “updating” or “reinterpreting” the terms the Constitution’s authors used in writing it.  At that, those terms haven’t changed much at all in these 230 or so years.

    Nothing here that draws a distinction concerning the Arms an American citizen can bear; even the Law Dictionary cite only tries to rule out dirks and such.

    Eric Hines

    • #27
  28. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Eric Hines: Nothing here that draws a distinction concerning the Arms an American citizen can bear; even the Law Dictionary cite only tries to rule out dirks and such.

    It requires a close reading of the Law Dictionary article because it’s easy to misunderstand. It says:

    This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine;

    It then goes on to define the arms of the artillery, which it said are not included in the meaning of arms for this purpose. It’s subtle and I acknowledge there are other views, but this source supports mine.

    • #28
  29. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Mark Wilson:

    Eric Hines: Nothing here that draws a distinction concerning the Arms an American citizen can bear; even the Law Dictionary cite only tries to rule out dirks and such.

    It requires a close reading of the Law Dictionary article because it’s easy to misunderstand. It says:

    This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine;

    It then goes on to define the arms of the artillery, which it said are not included in the meaning of arms for this purpose. It’s subtle and I acknowledge there are other views, but this source supports mine.

    I see no place where the arms of the artillery are excluded in the meaning of arms for this purpose.  What the next clause in the latest cited sentence says is of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms.  The grammar of the complete sentence makes pretty clear that the arms of the artillery(man) are included in This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier….

    The Law Dictionary also carries this definition for bearing arms [emphasis added]:

    To carry arms as weapons and with reference to their military use, not to wear them about the person as part of the dress. Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 158. As applied to fire-arms, includes the right to load and shoot them, and to use them as such things are generally used.

    Eric Hines

    • #29
  30. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    What are you getting at when you cite the definition of bearing arms?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.