dead weight

About every other day, I head over to the Commercial Appeal’s webpage, and run a quick search for “handgun” to see what new hoplophobic diatribes they have put forward as supposed journalism. I have been trying to ignore the plethora of “imported” news they seem to be posting these days (i.e. articles that come from other newspapers or news services), but buried in the mess of articles like that, is this column by Bryan Brasher.

Interestingly, the classic hoplophobia so prevalent in many of his co-workers’ writings is almost entirely lacking in this particular column, and the author in question actually owns three firearms, and possibly more. Unfortunately, Bryan makes up for that lack of hoplophobia by displaying an inordinate amount of fuddism.
“Fuddism” has no single definition online that I can link to, so I will do my best here.

Fuddism: [fuhd-diz-uhm] Noun. The belief that hunting firearms and self-defense firearms are somehow different, that the communities that use each are somehow different, and that the anti-rights movements against one community will have no effect on the other community. Extreme cases of fuddism will not hesitate to throw “assault weapon”, “handgun”, “concealed carry”, and/or other non-hunter communities to the anti-rights bears in order to attempt to save themselves, but even limited fuddites will constantly cling to the belief that their “hunting” firearms are somehow safe from anti-rights movements, and that banning/restricting firearms not commonly used for hunting is either irrelevant, or possibly even a good thing. Origin: Elmer Fudd.

Why is Bryan a fuddite? Well, consider this paragraph:

When gun owners and hunters get lumped into one great big category, hunters get dragged through the mud and the muck every time a gun crime is committed — and believe me, there are some anti-hunting groups who aren’t above using those blurred lines to their advantage.

Or this section:

Using such tragedies as ammunition in a fight against hunting is horribly disrespectful to the people whose lives were lost or affected when the guns went off.

But that’s how anti-hunting groups operate these days, and it’s why I’d like to see the issues of public gun control and hunting kept separate.

And, by way of a counterpoint, consider this quote from a gentleman far wiser than both Bryan and I combined:

We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

- Benjamin Franklin

Let me break this down for you, Bryan – a gun is a gun is a gun. It does not matter if I can carry it in a pocket, a holster, a sling, or a case, it is still a firearm, and to those anti-rights, anti-firearms, and anti-firearm-owner organzations out there, all firearms are equivalent. Sure, they may be focusing more on X firearm and not Y, but that is just a matter of prioritization and scheduling – trust me, they will get around to Y. Only, when they do, the owners of X will either be dead, or completely uninterested in helping you hold on to Y, considering that you were of absolutely no use in helping us hold on to X.

And then there is the simple fact that there is no major difference between most “hunting” firearms, and the kinds of firearms us non-hunters use.

For example, Bryan mentions owning a “Remington .300 ultra-mag”. To be accurate, those words describe a specific round, not an actual firearm, but I will take a wild leap and assume that Bryan actually owns a Remington 700 chambered in that particular caliber. Good gun, remarkably accurate straight out of the box, and with that kind of chambering, it could easily bring down most deer with a single well-placed shot. On the flip side, the Remington 700 is a favorite of military and police sniper teams, and the .300 ultra-mag round, out of the box, is more than sufficient to defeat Type I, Type II-A, Type II, Type III-A, probably Type III, and possibly even Type IV body armors. For those unfamiliar with body armors, those are all of the variants commonly available and wearable.

What you own, Bryan, is not a hunting rifle; it is a high-powered, long-range, armor-piercing, cop-killing sniper rifle. Or, at least, that is what anti-rights organizations would claim… you know, the same organizations that would keep me from being able to legally defend myself at a restaurant that serves alcohol. Organizations you supposedly do not care about.

As another example, Bryan admits to owning a “[Remington] 870 Express” – yet another fine firearm that has accounted for more than a few ducks and other waterfowl in its existence. Coincidentally, once you remove that funny-looking dorsal rib, shorten the barrel, extend the magazine tube, swap out the wood for polymer, and throw on a pistol grip, that particular firearm is 100% identical to my very own Janus.

What you have there is not a duck hunting tool, Bryan; it is a street-sweeping, door-busting, wall-perforating, innocent-bystander-killing agent of death capable of destroying tens of people in a single trigger pull. Or, at least, that is what certain groups will claim, once they decide to come after the 870-series receiver because people like me dress them up like we do.

Unfortunately, that logical disconnect is quite prevalent throughout fuddites… The fact is, most “hunting” firearms either started out as military firearms, have their design roots traceable back to previous military firearms, or are currently being used as military firearms… and yet fudds think a little wood furniture and a little camouflage paint will be enough to save their firearms, when they are functionally identical to other firearms possibly being banned in the near future. Hell, most “hunting” firearms are actually more powerful than firearms to be banned under the next incarnation of the ban-on-guns-that-look-evil.

We are all in this same boat, together, Bryan. And while people like me are busy defending the rights of all American citizens whether they own firearms or not and whether they hunt or not, people like you are almost actively attempting to sabotage the entire situation by pulling your “holier-than-thou” gos-se. Sure, your “hunting” guns are safe… for now. But once the anti-rights hoplophobes of America get done with the concealed carriers, the assault weapons, the handguns, and whatever else comes to mind, what do you think they will be after next? A gun is a gun, whether it is dressed up in wood and camo, or polymer and black.

With many apologies to Reverend Martin Niemoller, perhaps a topical adaptation of his famous quote is appropriate:

First they came for the assault weapons, but I did not speak up, because all my guns have wooden furniture.

Then they came for the concealed carry permits, but I did not speak up, because I did not have a permit.

Then they came for the handguns, but I did not speak up, because I was a rifle man.

Then they came for the hunting rifles, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Whether we can scrabble forward to defend and expand on the rights to self-defense for all American citizens, or whether we will be beaten down by the hoplophobic, anti-rights organizations throughout the American political environment, you can rest assured on this one point, Bryan – firearm owners will either rise, or fall, as a group. Being a hunter will not save you, especially not with the hardware you have. Of course, your attitude is not doing you a whole lot of good either… people like me are fighting for the rights of all American citizens to defend their lives, or not, as they see fit. You only seem interested in the rights that directly impact you, or that you directly care about. Speaking personally, I could not give a flying squirrel’s left nut as to whether it was legal or not to hunt in this country, so by your demonstrated logic, Bryan, I should hang you out to dry every chance I get, right?

Fortunately for you and the rest of your fuddite friends, rights activists like me can actually see past the ends of our own noses, and see how everyone should have their rights equally protected under the law, even if they never decide to exercise those rights in their entire lives. I may never hunt, but I want that right protected for me… just like one day, you might want want the right be able to legally defend yourself with a firearm in a park, or restaraunt that serves alcohol. So how about you stop being a dead albatross and start actually helping out in a similar manner? Or would that be asking you to risk just a little too much?