"To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corps training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn't have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog."
Recently, I declared that Weer'd is a liar for saying things like I "brag all over the internet" or "boast openly that I'd owned illegal guns." Saying that I've "done it multiple times across a number of blogs" is simply not true. When I called him a liar, I had a vague sense that it was an ambiguous statement which could be taken as a denial of my original admission, but I was getting so annoyed at his ridiculous comments that I just wrote it. I admit, in doing so I was violating one of my own rules, name-calling.
The fact is, as far as I can recall, the quote "I owned guns both legally and illegally" was the only time I ever mentioned it. Maybe there's another one out there somewhere, but there's been no "bragging" or "boasting" and certainly not "across a number of blogs."
Yesterday beowulf, who now admits to being 45superman wrote a lengthy comment about my running the risk of losing what little credibility I might have. I guess that's a fair response to the ambiguity of my calling Weer'd a liar. But it's a bit ironic coming from one who's been using a pseudonym.
About my having owned legal and illegal guns, I don't plan to expand on it. Sorry to disappoint. My personal life's experiences, including my experience with firearms, all contribute to making me who I am today. The same is true for everyone. My choice to remain anonymous and to keep my private life off the pages of this blog, to the extent that I do, is my choice. You can respect it or not, that's your choice.
That famous quote of mine was made about six months ago in response to this from commenter Michael:
Do you have any experience handling guns? Have you had any training, even of the informal "this is how it works, this is how not to shoot yourself" type?
[I promise I'm not waiting to spring a "THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION US!" line if you say no]
I wanted to answer the question, but no sooner had I done so than the attacks began.
What's your opinion about all this? Is Weer'd right to be so obsessed about this issue that he'd spend many hours on it and hijack numerous threads because of it? Don't I have a right to share with you what I feel comfortable doing and no more?
About illegal ownership of guns, do any of you admit to that? Isn't it possible to qualify as having owned guns illegally without categorizing yourself with the murderers and crack dealers?
What's you opinion? Please feel free.
You might be amazed at how many illegal gun owners are out there.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that they admit it.
I think this is a good reason why these people want to see the Second Amendment found to be an individual right. I believe that the head of one of the gun rights groups is a convicted felon.
you might find this interesting.
http://gunowners.org/op0368.htm
Funny, but these people would be kissing my ass if they were arrested and paying me the money I charge for representing them.
I think your illegal ownership illustrates our point that laws disproportionately affect the law abiding. You basically state "I favor laws that I have ignored when convenient to me".
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, I have never illegally owned a gun. I have not knowingly committed a gun crime more serious than locking my gun up while still operating my car. I certainly don't take the hypocritical position of supporting a law I will ignore.
Sevesteen, I have to disagree. My experience is that most law abiding gun owners follow the rules. Yes, there were a few cases from my days at USAO-DC.
ReplyDeleteSuch as the person who worked at the Capitol brought a gun to work and was caught when the cop questioned him about his concealed carry badge. A tourist who asks police at the Capitol where they can park their car since they have guns in the trunk.
My fav was the guy who went to Georgetown dressed as Hitler on Halloween with a real gun in a holster. Just imagine the time he had in the DC jail waiting to be bailed out!
But for the most part, gun owners try to abide by the law.
Did Laci just say "concealed carry badge"????
ReplyDeleteWow, impressive!
MikeB, I think I misunderstood this post.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you possessed firearms illegally? I have to actually admit to amusement here because of my work experience as a professional enabler. Not to mention my knowledge of DC gun culture: legal and illegal. And I guess I mean legal in more than one way!
I have to disagree with others that you lose your cred. That's an ad hominem argument
MikeB says he owned guns illegally
MikeB is for gun control
Therefore, we can't believe MikeB
As opposed to looking at what you say and examining it for its validity.
I have to admit that I don't necessarily agree with what you say, but you did invite me here because you wanted my input.
Weer'd Beard, I'm not sure what your comment means, but I'll take it as some kind of compliment.
BTW, I have to admit a bit of conflict from my Days at USAO-DC.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I was given a choice between domestic violence and the ceasefire program. That made for an obvious choice. I wasn't conflicted since I am of the opinion that we should indeed try to enforce the laws on the books.
An interesting position since it gave me quite an insight on DC gun laws and the gun ownership in the district.
Wonder why I get so worked up by Heller?
But, that's just an aside.
Weer'd - Just more ignorance on Laci's part. I'm not surprised.
ReplyDeleteSevesteen, I have to disagree. My experience is that most law abiding gun owners follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteActually, that's my point. Making it illegal for me to own certain guns, or certain ammo, or carry in the wrong places, or do any of those without the right paperwork doesn't make society safer.
The gun rules we need are based on activity, not possession or paperwork. Don't point guns at people, don't fire guns where it is dangerous to others.
If we can enforce those plus existing anti-noise ordinances, I can't think of any others we need. If we can't enforce those, other gun rules won't help.
"About illegal ownership of guns, do any of you admit to that? Isn't it possible to qualify as having owned guns illegally without categorizing yourself with the murderers and crack dealers?"
ReplyDeleteI'm lucky to live in a free state where there are no illegal guns. Only illegal people.
"i don't plan to expand on it"
ReplyDeleteHere, lemme translate that: "I should probably be in jail right now". You won't expand on it because you're afraid the ATF or someone will come after you. You're quite the terrible person, mike.
Sevesteen said, "The gun rules we need are based on activity, not possession or paperwork. Don't point guns at people, don't fire guns where it is dangerous to others."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting.
I think most gun owners would actually agree with the "activity vs. possession and paperwork" thing. What really burns us up is the government saying, "You can't have this gun or this ammo because we're worried about you misusing them."
ReplyDeleteIt makes us think, "Well, I know I'm not going to intentionally misuse them, so what right does this entity have to boss me around for no good reason?" That, and we can point to other dangerous things that we can do and have that require no licenses or permission, such as the purchasing and possession of chainsaws, heavy machinery, chemicals that can be used to make bombs, rocket engines, acids, sharp knives, handcuffs, high-voltage electrical equipment, etc.
If the gun laws revolved around harshly punishing gun crimes while doing nothing to limit possession and carrying by the law-abiding, I think you'd see a lot less anger from our side, because what we're after is to just do what we want, as long as we're not hurting anybody.
None of us want crack dealers and terrorists to have guns. So punish them when you find them by harshly criminalizing the commission of crimes using weapons. But don't criminalize our mere possession of those same guns. It's the commission of crime that matters, not the possession of the tools that can be used to do so, among other things.
The moment one of us fires a shot in anger, or threatens an innocent with a firearm, or accidentally shoots someone due to poor training, then by all means, lock us up in Club Fed and throw away the key. But as long as we live peaceful lives and only use our guns for recreation and self-defense, please just leave us alone.
Thanks Nathaniel, those are some good points.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked in Chicago years ago, I can attest that there were coworkers (Chicago residents) that had quietly admitted to me that they intentionally disobeyed that city's handgun ban.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing this with CPD officers off duty in taverns, its common belief from veteran officers that thousands of chicago homes have illegal handguns wrapped up in old rags hidden in corners of basements in Chicago with the residents telling themselves "That ban is only for those criminals, not for me protecting my family here at this home.".
I drove into Chicago to attend an amnesty gun turn in this year and did indeed witness Chicago residents turning in handguns and rifles. So there are instances where I have seen citizens disobey firearms laws where legislators have tried to make them criminals thru ignorant laws.
Illinois voter, Thanks for the comment. What was the main point, though? Was it that due to the various gun control laws sometimes decent people end up owning guns illegally? I guess that would be an eye-opener for some of my detractors who have such wild imaginations about my past.
ReplyDelete