|
« June 2013 |
Main
| December 2013 »
July 30, 2013
Questions about firearms? Ask Professor Gunn
Questions about firearms? Ask Professor
Gunn
 Editor's
note: This column (published Sunday in the Portsmouth, N.H.,
Herald and online) has provoked strong negative reaction,
much of it from readers calling me a "racist,"
"moron" and "asshole." (Also, my favorite,
"an angry, unhappy little man" with obvious "daddy
problems")
Due to some recent confusion about when it is OK to shoot
someone, today we check in with noted firearms advice columnist
Professor Gunn, who generously agreed to answer a few questions
from readers.
Dear Professor Gunn,
For a good while now I've been itching to shoot a fellow
human being, but I'm a little worried that our judicial
system might send me to jail. What should I do?
— George Z., Main Street
Dear George,
Fortunately, the law is on your side. Especially if the person
you shoot has dark skin or is wearing a spooky-looking hooded
sweatshirt. So go ahead and blast away. Doesn't even matter
if your victim is unarmed — the key is to make sure you
say the person scared you. If your victim is carrying, say,
a bag of Skittles candy, you can say you thought there was
a rattlesnake. Stuff like that.
Remember, nowadays, it's more important than ever to stand
your ground when you're chasing down your prey.
Dear Professor Gunn,
I'm kind of a ticking time bomb. I've got more guns than
I know what to do with. I'm super anti-social, and I often
feel confused and depressed. Plus, I keep hearing about
these party poopers who want to limit the number of bullets
I can fire without reloading my so-called assault rifles.
That sure would stink for a guy like me. Thank goodness
the NRA has got my back. How come they get such a bad rap
in the media?
— A.K.
Dear A.K.,
Don't despair. If there's one thing you can count on in
this crazy, mixed-up, bullet-riddled country, it is that
the NRA will always have your back.
You see, the gun-hating liberal media will never understand
the crucial role firearms have always played in American
culture — from John Wilkes Booth and Clyde Barrow to
Adam Lanza and Bruce Willis.
That's why you'll never see any positive coverage about
how much the firearms industry fires up the economy —
not just the billions in sales of guns, ammo and cute .22-caliber
Crickett rifles for the kids, but also spinoff sales of
caskets, flowers and funeral catering.
Dear Professor Gunn,
Like every patriotic American, I support the right of each
citizen to own an arsenal stocked with hunting rifles, pistols,
muskets, Glocks, submachine guns, sawed-off shotguns, those
new plastic guns that can pass through a metal detector,
bazookas, whatever. But sometimes all these mass shootings
in schoolhouses, movie theaters, yoga classes, etc., get
a little depressing.
Isn't there anything we can do to strike a better balance
between our God-given right to arm ourselves to the teeth
and our obviously less-important right to strive for a society
that is not riddled by constant death and violence?
— Fred Q., Stratham
Dear Fred,
Nope. These killings, though sad to some, actually make
us all safer. You see, every time a bunch of unarmed losers
are gunned down, people get more scared — that means
more guns are sold and that makes us all safer.
What's really scary is that the gun haters always use these
so-called tragedies to try to take away our rights. Fortunately,
after the most recent schoolhouse massacre, the American
public's overwhelming wish for expanded background checks
on gun purchases was easily snuffed out by our elected leaders
in Washington. All those campaign contributions from the
NRA definitely did the trick. Thank goodness, because America's
gun makers care first and foremost about safety!
Dear Professor Gunn,
Our nation's troubling obsession with firearms and inability
to enact even modest, common-sense measures aimed at staunching
the bloodshed make me question both our morality and our
sanity. Even though you and I will obviously disagree, can
you sort of see where I'm coming from?
— Jack M., Dover
Dear Jack,
Look moron, if you don't like America you're free to move
to one of those wimpy "civilized" countries where
gun-related killings are comparatively rare like England
or Japan or Australia or France or Spain or Canada or Norway
or Zambia.
P.S. — Don't let the bullets hit your backside on
the way out the door, you gun-hating baby.
Dear Professor Gunn,
Seems like for more than two centuries, America did just
fine with laws that allowed someone to kill an assailant
if their life was in danger — you know, in self-defense.
Yet somehow, a couple of years ago states across the nation,
including New Hampshire in 2011, began adopting these extreme,
right-wing "Stand Your Ground" laws that greatly
expand everybody's "license to kill."
This is great news for the gun makers, but I'd say not
so great for human beings.
A recent repeal effort failed in the N.H. Senate, making
me think we should pressure our legislators to dump this
shady law that makes it way easier for people to get away
with murder.
Because right now, if you call some guy a name at the Thirsty
Moose or down at Prescott Park and he comes at you maybe
looking like he's gonna throw a punch, you're allowed to
shoot him because you felt threatened, right?
— Concerned citizen
Dear Clueless Chump,
You got it, punk. What part of "unrestrained use of
guns makes us all safer" don't you understand? But
for the system to work, you gotta be able to use the guns
to waste anybody you perceive as a threat. Come to think
of it, I'm starting to perceive you as a threat, so I suggest
you pipe down.
Jeez, and you're from New Hampshire for crying out loud.
Live Free or Die, man.
Writer's note: I believe in the Second Amendment right
of Americans to own firearms for hunting and sporting purposes,
and of course for self-defense.
I also believe things have gotten a little out of control.
To me, it seems unfortunate that it is legal for an armed
man to track an unarmed man (or teenager) and then, when
the confrontation he initiated turns against him, to kill
the man (or teenager) he was pursuing without any legal
consequences.
Posted by John Breneman at 9:21 AM | Permalink
July 1, 2013
Independence Day: What would Founding Fathers say?
Independence Day: What would Founding Fathers
say?
 By
John Breneman
The Fourth of July isn't till Thursday, but there sure
were some fireworks this week illuminating vital American
issues of immigration, the right to vote and the ability
to pursue happiness by marrying the person you love.
The Supreme Court fires a rocket into the Voting Rights
Act. Ooh! Then sparks celebrations, and tantrums, with its
vote on gay marriage. Aah! The Senate blazes forward on
immigration reform, igniting opponents in our horribly dysfunctional
House. Ooh! Aah!
I'm hoping these political pyrotechnics provide a high-voltage
jolt to a democracy badly in need of one — as well
as to we the citizens who supposedly run the show.
We are a people suffering a blinding hangover from out-of-control
parties — and I don't mean the fun kind.
I'm talking about parties hell-bent on making it harder
for certain people to vote. Parties that, in state legislatures
across the nation, are obsessed with exerting control over
women's bodies — and I don't mean in a fun consensual
way.
I'm talking about two parties — run by rich men on
the take from even richer men — whose votes are often
motivated more by political self-preservation than actually
helping our nation.
After the Great Financial Meltdown of 2008 gutted retirement
accounts and crashed the economy, we wished Washington would
take action to protect us from the inevitable next disaster.
Sadly, our fortunes rest in the hands of a Congress that
refuses to lift a finger to regulate the big banks.
After Newtown, an overwhelming majority of we the people
favored expanded background checks for those buying guns.
But the crew we elected to represent us just keeps shooting
blanks.
Why, it's enough to make Joe Citizen want to knock back
more than one beer with his Fourth of July burger.
And I am not the first chump to suggest that party politics
is making a mockery of democracy.
But hey, the Fourth of July is supposed to be about the
other kind of party — a celebration of that day 237
years ago when a group of patriots with widely divergent
beliefs came together to create their idea of the best country
ever.
Can you imagine that very first Fourth of July party? Well,
the history books reveal that my early explorations of this
very topic date back to the late 20th century...
The year was 1776. Young Thomas Jefferson, 33, threw a
barbecue at his house and all the Founding Fathers were
there, along with everybody who was anybody during those
heady days before the Revolution.
The Washingtons — George, Martha and little Denzel
— stopped by with some of Martha's famous "I cannot
tell a lie" cherry pie, considered to be the tastiest
in the Colonies.
John and Abigail Adams brought a crate of lobsters and
their 9-year-old son John Quincy, who played roll the hoop
with little Andy Jackson, also 9. Adams' older brother Samuel,
53, wearing a stylish puffy shirt and brown vest, hauled
along plenty of his "hand-crafted" Summer Ale.
Young Aaron Burr, 20, brought some pistols in case anyone
wanted to duel and old-timer Benjamin Franklin had a box
of kites festooned with stripes and stars.
Once most of the guests had arrived at Jefferson's Monticello
estate, Paul Revere, 41, galloped up on his horse, Tea Biscuit,
screaming, "The British are coming! The British are
coming!"
"Just kidding," said the patriotic prankster,
who then wandered off to ask Sam Adams for a bottle of Boston
Lager.
Meanwhile, Jefferson was playing the consummate host. Garbed
in a tri-cornered chef's hat and an apron embroidered with
the words, "All menus are NOT created equal,"
he manned the grill while presiding over a buffet piled
with parsnip puffs, stewed rump of beef and roasted bone-in
leg of lamb.
"Hey Jefferson," shouted fellow Virginian Patrick
Henry, "Give me another corndog or give me death!"
After dessert — with everyone stuffed on Indian pudding
and macaroons — Jefferson gathered the group and unrolled
some paper with fancy writing on it. He cleared his throat
and began reading. "When in the course of human events,"
he began, "yada, yada, yada... We hold these truths
to be, um..."
"Self-evident?" suggested Ben Franklin.
"Yeah that's it, self-evident ... that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of ..."
"Beer!" shouted Paul Revere.
"Chicks!" yelled 18-year-old future president
James "Jimmy" Monroe.
"No, Happiness," said Jefferson, who droned on
for about 20 more minutes until John Hancock whipped out
a quill pen and started signing his name.
"Hey, leave some room for the rest of us," said
New Hampshire signer Josiah Bartlett, as Samuel Adams drizzled
some beer onto the edges to help give the document that
"parchment" feel.
Then the celebration really started to get lively. Thomas
Paine implored the revelers to use common sense, but Hancock
and Franklin began lighting off crude rockets packed with
gun powder that, upon bursting in the air, produced a most
delightful red glare.
Our adoption of the Declaration of Independence in that
Summer of 1776, certainly put future president John Adams
in a partying mood. History shows he declared that henceforth
we should celebrate Independence Day with "pomp and
parade ... guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from
one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward
forever more."
Boom! Ooh, aah!
Count me in. I'll be working all day, but as soon as I'm
done, pour me a frosty Samuel Adams.
Because my thirst for that "more perfect union"
envisioned by our Founding Fathers will never diminish
* This column appeared in the Sunday, June 30, 2013, Portsmouth
(N.H.) Herald. See
more.
Twitter: @MrBreneman
Posted by John Breneman at 12:49 PM | Permalink
|
