Monkeys with Guns

Daniel L. Bamberg
columnist

In response to the gun monkeys...

I was offended when Barack Obama said Middle Americans were angry people clinging to their guns and bibles. I was offended when the rock group Green Day wrote a song called “Bullet in the Bible” which expressed the contradiction in handgun ownership and Christianity. Here I am, however a Christian in love with Christ. Here I am, a pro-second amendment American (not your average pro-second amendment advocate because I don’t own a gun and believe a world completely without guns is a morally ideal concept, even if it is impossible). Yes, here I sit over the past three weeks I’ve been called a liberal nut, which is funny because others have called me ultra conservative. I’ve been called a non-Christian, I’ve been called a coward, and all because I stand up for the equal rights of those who might disagree with my true beliefs. Rarely in my opinion column have I allowed my actual beliefs to completely surface because my approach has always been fair and middle of the road, some get that. Meanwhile others are insulted week after week. I don’t believe in theocracies, fascism, propaganda, violence, or hatred.

I find it peculiar that the most controversial topic I’ve touched on so far was about guns. Of all the heated topics I have addressed since "Everybody Has One" debuted, this is the one that strikes a nerve. I've talked about irresponsible law enforcement, hypocricy in modern faith, evolution, pollution, and even called the major opinion news media "nazis". Don't get me wrong I got my share of heat from those topics. Yet you would think I either won the Pulitzer or slapped someone's grandmother with all the feedback I got from my column "The Right to Beat Violence, the Right to Kill Innocence." I hear ya’ all of ya’ the heck with standing up for morality, truth, and social dignity. Let’s make the ownership of a killing machine our greatest passion. Yee Haw (said with my most mundane sarcastic voice). I am proud to have finally struck a nerve. I even received my first threat, which is now framed and will be hung in the living room of my new home soon.

This week I received emails, snail mails, second hand verbal messages, and phone calls regarding my column about making punishments for irresponsible gun ownership much stricter. It appears everyone somehow gathered I was suggesting the government should ban handguns. If this week's critics had actually read and comprehended what was published they would have noticed that (not once but) twice in that column I actually stated the opposite. Never once did I suggest the right to bear arms should be taken away. In fact I said this right should not be taken away.

I also feel it necessary to point out that I clearly specified “handguns” when I expressed my personal loathing of firearms. I never once mentioned hunting riffles or shotguns. I actually used the word handgun and semi-automatic weapons. Some of you felt it necessary to send in NRA literature, or as I call it heartless death stroke propaganda. The improper education concerning how guns protect individuals was not necessary. I have read all of that nonsense before. That is exactly what it is, nonsense. The NRA's material is a Public Relations tool for those who condone violence, and have on several occasions held rallies in towns whose citizens were grieving an innocent life taken by a handgun. If you want NRA facts, check the organization's history. Major gun enthusiast and journalist Hunter S. Thompson was once given the opportunity to write about the NRA. According to many he was excited about the chance. The piece never saw the light of day, however because Thompson came out of the experience claiming the group were a bunch of heartless and self righteous hypocrites. Perhaps that is neither here nor there. I would like to say however for every story of protection, which was sent in to me, I could find 25 to 30 stories on the exact dates of those events to match where handguns were used offensively, not defensively. In fact I could probably find 100 or more if I really took the time to dig.

One thing I kept reading and hearing from last week's critics over and over again was "Criminals get the guns illegally how can you come down on responsible gun owners when they have no control of what a criminal does?" That's a tough one. Nah, not really. Let me give it a shot. Nearly all weapons used in a crime were once purchased legally within the country. On very rare occasions they are smuggled internationally. Criminals get a hold of the guns through theft of an individual or business and illegal purchase from an individual in need of quick cash. In other words the possession of a gun for a criminal began with the legal purchase somewhere.
Perhaps you can't blame the owner in most incidents where they wind up on the street. You can easily however blame the availability of guns and indirectly those who advocate stockpiles of arsenal on the market. I call these "gun monkeys." These are those who haven't evolved out of the Old West. People who protect their homes are one thing. People who carry guns around in their automobile or on their person are like cowboys. 

Also every self-protection example sent in to me with the exception of one was during home invasion. My article was not about someone who had a shotgun in the house. It was about someone who was carrying a gun in his car and shooting it in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Again, last week’s critics simply did not read my column. I’d love to play the devil’s advocate and debate you people for kicks. Lord knows your arguments are so typical I could wax Nostradamus on every rebuttal you've got. The problem is your attacks are not exactly oppositions to neither my opinion nor my column.

On the issue of me saying handgun ownership was an measure of “social deviance” I can only laugh at the reactions I got from that. The idea of owning a gun as protection is an example of how “deviant” society has gotten. If society was not “deviant” you wouldn’t need to protect yourself with a killing tool. I also clearly said I respected the right to bear arms. The man whose poor family's incident gave me the inspiration for the story was a gun owner, and still is. I sent him the column before I printed it. He’s a member of the NRA, a gun collector, and I have went to the shooting range with him on numerous occasions. He not only liked the column he agreed with it. Of course that is because he actually understands the English language. Yes, liberal whack job Daniel Bamberg has shot a gun. I am not a bad shot and for kicks I enjoy them. Still, I would never own one.

Finally to in regards to the very vague potential threat, which was issued to me, let me stress something. One, you proved every point I made. Two, do not make a pro second amendment individual like myself a martyr for those who oppose your rights. I clearly suggested I was morally against guns and personally would not own them. I followed that with a clear emphasis that I believed the second amendment was a right, which should be upheld. Before you go popping your gat, read the whole thing and learn basic English comprehension you courageous gangsta you.

I stand up for the second amendment (in spite of the fact I believe it to be vastly misinterpreted by many gun owners) simply because citizens have owned them for too long to let the government take them away at will. I also stand up for the second amendment because I do believe we should have a chance to defend our rights in the strange case that the government attempts to turn on us (the citizens). I am against the second amendment because we have come a long way since the musket. Also I find it peculiar that we are given the right to keep and bear arms but I can't order a panzer, a nuclear warhead, a Israeli jet, or a mess of napalm. These are arms I can get down with. Yet I can own a Desert Eagle or .50 caliber, nothing more than elephant guns in a country where elephants are all in zoos with the monkeys. I also oppose the second amendment because I believe it is this right, which has allowed the criminals to possess these things in the first place. Guns are killing machines. They are not toys. They rarely protect. They don't add inches to your size or points to your IQ. You can't score a good-looking woman with one. You can't get into heaven or Dodge City with one. You can't procreate with a gun. You can't wipe your rear with a gun. You can't get a new best friend with a gun. You can't make a million bucks (legally) with a gun. You can't raise your children with a gun. You can eat by using a gun, but with a handgun you'll look silly. They are for nothing except killing. If that makes me less of a man so be it. If a manufactured object measures my bravery I will proudly take on the name yellow.

I want to end on a temptation, which was in one Robert Kornman's letter to the editor. I am pro-second amendment because I believe we should be able to arm ourselves in case of a government seige on our rights. Yet, let us be brutally realistic. Korman mentioned he would go with 50 million hunters over the government with his chances. I am not sure if there are really 50 million hunters in America, but never mind that. I would take my chances with the hunters as well simply because I won't stand for government oppression against my countrymen. On terms of chances, in a gambling scenario, if you really believe they are going to fight off armored tanks, jet fire, foreign ally support, and so -on you really are living in a fantasy world. If this government actually decides to turn on us our stand will be something to take pride in. At the same time, however it will be futile resistance.