“Defenders of the Second Amendment should not only oppose restrictions to gun purchases and ownership (as they do already), but they should be advocating for a fully armed citizenry. By the age of 12, every budding young adult should have passed mandatory gun training and be issued a weapon so that they can stand united to defend the ramparts of our nation against the evils of communism, of creeping socialism, and the over-reaching arms of an out-of-control government in Washington, D.C. Just as we provide food stamps to the hungry and inexpensive housing to the poor, our nation should be committed to arming every citizen so they can adequately defend America.” –Â Rev. Jeff Liebmann minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland, Truth and Meaning: Guns for Everyone [via ourmidland.com]
I always wondered when I was in high school why if I was expected to sign up for the draft and ready myself to be fodder in some pointless war the feds didn’t send me an AR-15 and a few thousand rounds of ammo for my 18th birthday.
The many contradictions of being an “adult”. Shortly after signing my civil service paper in high school I had to ask permission to use the bathroom. Apparently I was responsible enough to defend my country, but not know if I was able to urinate all by myself. Also, I wasn’t allowed to buy alcohol or handguns. The stuff that is “ok” and not in this country blows my ignorant mind.
Spoken like a true U-U, the church that follows the Ten Suggestions, and prays to Whom It May Concern.
Yeah, the U-U’s are sort of “God Lite”. Less fulfilling, more vacuous.
How come I’m picturing Captain Barbosa from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, “more like guidelines than actual rules”. As an agnostic, I can’t find a more pointless religion than Unitarianism. It all the folks that want say their Christian but not be bound by any rules that might make them feel bad about themselves. In other words it’s the height of feel good emotionalism and non-thinking.
An excellent analysis. Like a more extreme version of “cafeteria Catholics” and your run-of-the-mill “mainstream” Episcopalian.
Probably because if we followed every rule in the Bible, we wouldn’t have a free country.
Might be wrong but I don’t think the Unitarians describe themselves as “Christian”. Not affirming the deity of Christ puts them outside the bounds of the Faith, at least in the eyees of evangelicals.
Now my brain hurts.
Watch what you wish for Liberals… watch what you wish for…
“…every budding young adult should have passed mandatory gun training and be issued a weapon so that they can stand united to defend…our nation….”
Works for Switzerland.
…And Israel…
….and me.
Um, did anyone else read the whole article? I think you guys should check out the last paragraph and find out that he is not serious and then slams gun owners.
Thus the TTAG title….
Yeah, but other than that paragraph, he makes perfect sense. Why doesn’t someone “edit” his article by deleting that paragraph, then disseminate widely with attribution to the good pastor, under a tagline like “church officials finally see the light!”
I thought I caught a major whiff of sarcasm in this dude’s remarks. Then, upon seeing his credentials were from the U-U church,. I knew I was right.
Best description I’ve heard of the U-U church from an old co-worker: “A group of people gathered together for the express purpose of believing in nothing.”
Um, did anyone else read the whole article? I think you guys should check out the last paragraph and find out that he is not serious and then slams gun owners.
sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Yo’re right. Figured it was going that direction.
I didn’t have to read the rest of the article to know that quote was SOAKED in sarcasm.
I didn’t even get past the picture with the “standing on the side of LOVE” logo’d sweatshirt.
You mean just like when sarah silverman thought that a national ccw license should be issued and it could also be used as voter ID? She also was being very snarky. But it was the best idea she’s ever had.
The sarcasm was crystal clear when he got to the part about every kid being “issued” a gun. I did not waste my time reading the article. I like the suggestion that school kids should be taught to Shoot and proper Firearms Safety, Handling and Responsible Behavior, but would stop short of “issuing” a gun. That is up to their Parents, not the Government and, by extension, Taxpayers. Maybe a Tax Credit if you buy your kid a gun upon successful completion and certification of the school course. That would be fair.
I didn’t even know the Unitarian “Church” was still around. Thought it died a death of indifference….
Typical snide, smug condescending remarks from an individual who lacks critical thinking skills and any sense of history.
We ought to give the guy a break. He’s a frustrated liberal stuck in Midland of all places. Surrounded by red-necks who basically believe and practice everything he mentions in his article, the poor guy is probably driven to distraction. His article is a cry for help . . .
Actually he betrays his leanings in a few statements prior to his punchline. He says mandatory when typical RKBA supporters would balk at being mandated to do anything based simply on their birth. And he suggests socialist style dispersal of guns. The projection is apparent and it’s obvious the concept of freedom as we see it is beyond his grasp. He thinks we just disagree on what the government should allow us to do, the truth that the government allows nothing is alien.
I am all in on gun safety training, starting at 10yrs old and reinforced in future years much like fire drills. Not so much on issuing every 12yr old a gun. Regardless of any argument, it should be an individual choice and not everyone is mature enough for a gun. Freedom is about choice, even if someone chooses not to be armed. As far a combating Communism and Socialism, how about bringing back civics classes and teaching the constitution as written versus the revisionist history they teach today? How about teaching the limits of government and the police cannot always help you?
I would be happy to live in a world where there are those who do not like guns, but at the same time understand, that it is an individual right that should not be infringed.
I’ve had the thought many times that maybe they should require some sort of firearms training in high school. The kids/students, whatever you want to call them, would be required to take the class, and when they were done they could make their own choice as to whether or not they would ever own one, have one in their homes, etc. Hey, that is their choice to exercise or not their 2nd amendment rights.
And then I think about the drivers ed class I was required to take and some (many) of the students in that class. And then I picture those students with loaded weapons. Point of fact, I remember our drivers ed instructor getting irritated with a girl because she kept running stop signs. He finally told her, “If you run one more stop sign, I will flunk you.” In my mind I keep thinking about her holding a weapon and the instructor stating, “If you shoot one more person, I will flunk you.” Then I get frightened and put the idea aside and have Sooooo much more respect for the Drill Instructors, etc. in the military branches. They may not be that nice in some cases, but they’ve got to be some sort of angels to make sure so many people survive basic training.
Two points, first operating a vehicle is infinitely more complex and dangerous than operating a firearm. Second much like sex ed dose not usually require copulation or handling genitalia basic gun education need not require shooting or handling a firearm.
True enough on both counts. It’s just where my mind goes with the thought process.
I think I’ve done well enough with teaching kids, adults, whatever on the proper handling of weapons since I haven’t lost any students and to my knowledge none of them have ever shot themselves or anyone else. However I am a more hands on person and I just don’t see my methods of teaching going over well in a school setting.
My mind just jumped to the idea of bringing new meaning to the term ‘Pop Quiz’. Did you bring your ammo?
Because, freedom. And not every 12-yr-old is dependable, and not every 22-yr-old is trustworthy.
But if more of the dependable ones, and more of the trustworthy ones have the skills, it is better.
I actually took some of Lott’s numbers on the cost savings provided by concealed carryers who save lives and figured out some interesting savings. Here is a sentence from my notes on it.
So, one reasonable approach would be for the federal government to buy everybody a $450 gun (Glock, Springfield, etc…). If the government bought guns for 1% of Americans, they would spend $1.5-billion and save $3-billion in victim costs.
Also, that sentence is somewhat conservative because the real savings in victim costs is $3.45-billion in 1998 dollars and the spend would be about $1.422-billion in today dollars.
One Glock: $450
One box of hollow points: $20
Not being raped or killed: Priceless
The basis of all humor is truth… not always the truth intended, though …
“By the age of 12, every budding young adult should have passed mandatory gun training and be issued a weapon so that they can stand united to defend the ramparts of our nation against the evils of communism, of creeping socialism, and the over-reaching arms of an out-of-control government in Washington, D.C. … A more armed America is a safer America. … This is the logical extension of the argument of Second Amendment defenders. ”
Not only that, nearly every point he made was ACTUALLY a starting premise of those that drafted it … The one topical thing he left out that needs adding is the Barbary Pirates… for the Sons of the Prophet truly raid abroad again…
Preach on, Reverend! Preach on!
So, basically a “minister” writes a snarky, ignorant piece of satire.
He said: “Then, there are the others — the gun advocates who assert their right to purchase and own guns in order to defend our Second Amendment rights. They argue that the founders of this nation crafted this statement so that the people could defend the Republic against tyranny. They argue that they have not only the right, but the duty to bear arms as a defense against a government that would threaten the core principles of freedom and democracy for which America stands….
Let’s assume for a moment that this assertion is true.”
Assertion is true? We have the words of the founders of this nation on record. Words such as:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
While I agree with all the sentiments, only the quotes by Mason, Lee, and Henry are real. The Jefferson and Washington quotes are spurious. The Jefferson one in particular sounds more like Heinlein or John Wayne.
Our founders said and wrote plenty of pro-gun things. We don’t want or need to go around perpetuating made-up stuff.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/those-who-hammer-their-guns-plowsquotation
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/
Thanks for that. We pro-gun people need to check our quotes rigorously as there are so many fake ones out there.
Thanks for correcting me.
You are right about the Jefferson “quote”, it does seem actually laughable now that you mention it.
It sounds like a paraphrase of “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”
“There are two kinds of people in this world, Lloyd: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.”
Glancing through the source comment section, Jeff Liebmann throws out the usual anti arguments, but he is surprisingly more clever than your average anti. As far as unwavering statists go, he would be one of the more engaging and interesting opponents to debate.
1) He notes conservatives that supported BG checks and other restrictions (Reagan, Heston shortly before his death)
2) He sidesteps correlating gun control to democide by stating most deaths were not by firearm
3) He flips an interesting Sam Adams quote around to accuse patriots of being traitors
While he remains categorically wrong in his conclusions, he does manage to avoid much of the general shrieking and pants wetting tactics that we have grown used to.
A thinking, articulate fool is still a fool.
If Progressives want our country to be neutral when it comes to foreign affairs, they need to look around. There is only one country in history that has been successful at neutrality, that hasn’t been conquered by an opportunist dictator. In that country, every able bodied male between 18 and 60 has a rifle stored in their home with a giggle-switch. Last statistic I read said that they have 18 trained citizen soldiers for every square kilometer of land in their country. To come close to that density of defense capability, the US would probably need to start training kids at 12. (Personally, target and hunting, absolutely; the art of war, probably not.) It does strike me as absurd that this guy is a Progressive and claims to be a “reverend” when the Progressives have started to create and unequally enforce laws in order to persecute Christians.
And are commencing a program to demonize the writers of the Constitution in preparation to further ignoring it, likely getting to the outlawing of religion pretty quickly.
Most UUs don’t even pretend to be Christian anymore.
Firearm safety training yes on that I agree 200%. Arming all at age 12 that’s the kind of thing that makes us have to fight the anti’s more. I do agree that at age 12 some kids are ready for a firearm my son had his safety training certificate and hunting lic. But the truth of the matter is not all kids are ready for the responsibility but requiring all 10 or 11 year old kids to have to pass a firearms safety corse is a good thing made even better if they have to live fire with proper supervision not like here shoot this full automatic that I know you won’t be able to control so I’ll stand in the most likely place you will end up shooting at. No proper supervision where instructor has control go the firearm but the kids get to understand that they are very powerful and are not toys.
What a great insight into the liberal-statist mindset! The answer to everything is more government. It is beyond Mr. Liebmann’s comprehension that people can like something, believe it is good for society, and yet be against the government mandating it for everyone.
Wow..he pretty much described the Swiss nation. You know, the land of Heidi and cow bells, Swiss cheeese and delicious chocolate. All the young folks get to keep in their homes all manner of military gear.
I visited Switzerland over the summer, even got to talk to an old man running a gun store in Zurich. A Glock costs 900 euros, or $1300, in Switzerland, but a soldier is given the option of purchasing his service rifle for about 300 euros. He also told me that there are a lot of immigrants trying to get into Switzerland looking for jobs, kind of like Californians moving to Texas, who take their stupid ideologies with them.
“It’s gotten so bad that most young people in Switzerland eat at McDonald’s because they are afraid of using knives to eat.” – some cool old dude
So he advances this strawman, the mandatory guns for kids program, which no one has actually proposed, as a way to deflect attention from the gun ban he insists no one is proposing while he is actually proposing it? Sounds like a regular old Tuesday morning, to me.
“…every budding young adult should have passed mandatory gun training and be issued a weapon…”
Very telling that even in his attempt at sarcasm he can’t understand the difference between the right to have something and the expectation that it be provided by the government. I don’t even need to read the entirety of his drivel to see he’s clueless.
Typical statist thought process. If it’s not banned, it should be mandated or vice versa. If we aren’t wanting to ban guns we are obviously in favor of shoving one into everyone’s hands. That’s because all they understand is force mandated by top men. They see no other way to get things done, and everyone must think the way they do.
Not sure if serious…
Not serious. He thinks he’s clever.
Is it so far beyond a Leftists thinking skills to understand that some people believe in choice and freedom?
I’m inclined to think yes if their reaction to something is “so you believe this thing is good? Then obviously you must believe that we should make it mandatory”.
Is it so far beyond a Leftists thinking skills to understand that some people believe in choice and freedom?
Is it so far beyond a Leftists thinking skills to understand freedom?
FIFY.
They’re OK with you having a choice, as long as it’s pre-approved and they agree with it. Other than that, not so much.
I say we take the good parts of his article, take him out of context, and make him the patron saint of TTAG.
Did he just plagiarize the founding forefathers of our nation?
Meh, he got two things wrong. The government shouldn’t “provide food stamps to the hungry and inexpensive housing to the poor,” that should be left for private charity to take care of. But other than that he’s right on (yes, I know he’s not serious).
No, because that’s basically conscription. At the very least mandatory military service. Neither of those things are ideal in a free society.
Gun ownership is a right. But it isn’t compulsory and it never should be. It’s a big responsibility that each individual has to decide to take on or not.
As others have mentioned. A progressive’s mindset always leads to mandating things on the public. Which is rarely what should be done.
Made the mistake of reading through the comments under the original article. This Rev. Liebmann guy is a true believer, isn’t he? My favorite reply of his in the comments was in regards to 70-some million Chinese starving after Mao’s coming to power that The Good Chairman’s policies had nothing to do with guns.
Still trying to walk back the logic that could lead someone to make such an asinine statement and failing.
Little help?!?
Consider ignorance combined with superstition and stupidity, as well as sloth (the source of the ignorance).
That last paragraph is hateful. His Amazon bio describes him an an atheist, so I’m not sure how that fits with being a minister. Whatever. He has a lot of hate for his fellow citizens.
The Unitarian-Universalist denomination has quite a few atheists. Seriously.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/atheism/
Thanks. What an unusual bunch, but if it works for them, that’s cool. I do have a problem with people who profess their love for humankind and then write nasty articles like this one accusing people like me of being dangerous and un-American.
Mandatory rifle training and arming each citizen for the defense of the nation seems to be working out okay for the Swiss.
This idiot’s sarcasm seems to have gotten in the way of his comprehension skills. People on the pro-2A side aren’t generally for mandatory government anything. We’re for free choice. I choose to be armed. You’re free to choose to be a helpless victim if you want. That’s what liberty looks like.
I assume that he thinks his suggestions are a bad plan?
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Every American trained in safe firearm handling by the age of 12? Great idea!
Every American issued a rifle? Sounds like a much better use of my taxes than most everything else they get wasted on.
I like his comments below the article relating to hunters, insinuating that those who hunt for game must be poor, and therefore should be on welfare.
Where I grew up, most of us were trained gun owners by age 12. My first gun was a single shot 20 gauge, given to me at age 11, and I had been shooting for years before that.
If we believe the statistics about gun ownership in america that get bounced around (35% of the population owns all the guns), then a mandatory “make safe” class makes real sense. 60+% of our future population didn’t grow up with guns & won’t know how to unload grandpa’s gun when he dies.
Dear abby used to run an article every year about people who died dinking around with “unloaded” guns.. (people who drop the mag & don’t know there’s one in the chamber).. it seems to me that in 13 years of primary education, we could find room for a half-day class that explains how to drop a mag & rack the slide on a glock, how to empty & unload the most common types of shotguns, etc.. it would save lives , but that isn’t reason enough for the grabbers to support such an idea. They would much rather hope that unicorns magically protect their children from the ignorance about guns that they advocate.
The real deity of Unitarian Universalists is government, not a unseen God. In their case they are so open minded their brains have leaked out
Except for the government-supplied firearms, I’m all in with this, even if he’s kidding. I’d even bend on government-supplied firearms for the youngsters if they’re just school property like text books and not permanently transferred to the students.
I’m ok with driver’s ed and swimming lessons in the schools, too, but I’m not buying every kid his own car or putting a pool in his backyard. Need to buy your own guns long term.
In his push to ensure we Second Amendment supporters recognize the folly of his intellectual and (apparently inevitable) conclusion, the good reverend trips over one glaring leap of logic. His implicit suggestion that the Constitution was designed to make all men equal in capability, rather than in opportunity is the tricky part. If his assertion were true, then it would be an equally logical and inevitable conclusion to derive for supporters of the First Amendment that the US government is responsible for providing the entire citizenry with free pens, paper, typewriters, printing presses & even internet-ready computers. Not to mention educating every child (by the age of 12) in their proper use. Which entitlement programs should be de-funded to support this cause? The 3rd Amendment would be interpreted such that Soldiers MAY NOT be housed in private residences. “Sorry, CPL Jones, forget about that weekend B&B retreat until you are discharged”. The 5th Amendment would REQUIRE that you are silent, if arrested, or at least that you be provided, free of charge, all the tools & training to do so. Public schools would add “How to remain silent when arrested” & “How to resist attempts at police interrogation” to the common core curriculum. This simple misinterpretation of the structure & purpose of the Constitution leads to these absurd conclusions. In point of fact the actual purpose of our country’s foundational structures are to protect the RIGHT of the citizenry to exercise these possibilities unimpeded & unmolested. It is this protected opportunity which makes us equal, not the government supplying us with resources “free of charge”.
A lot of countries already do what this guy is saying and some of those countries are looked to as better than the U.S. by people like this guy. Ironic.
That would make us like Switzerland except the government issues the rifle when a couple gets married and sets up a household……to defend their homeland.
I was a thirteen year old from Chicago who spent a week at 4H summer camp in 1964 when I fired my first rifle, a .22, at the camp’s range.
It was fun, nobody got hurt, and my parents never had to sign a waiver or give permission for me to shoot. Nor do I think I ever told them. It just seemed normal to me.
So where is the sarcasm in this essay? Somehow I missed it.