| updated weekly |
home - contribute - donate - message board - events - links - contact us - archive |
| October 6, 2006 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig, insurgent49 It’s been a hysterical week here at Insurgent Headquarters. The other day, I got a “courtesy call” from the National Rifle Association. “Adam” started off by asking me when the last time was that I went hunting. I had to think about that one. It had been almost twenty years, I finally figured, when my Dad and I bagged an elk on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. “I don’t hunt anymore”, I explained to Adam from the NRA, “I prefer these days to shoot wildlife with a camera. Nothing against hunting, though. I know that hunters are among the best conservationists in the world”. Adam paused a second on the word “conservationist”, as if some grave evil had been spoken, before he hit me with his next question. “What would you do, Mr. Selbig, if the United Nations knocked on your door and demanded to confiscate all of your firearms?” I don’t think Adam from the NRA appreciated my laughter at his ridiculous question and, after a brief argument over whether or not the UN was adopting something called the “World Gun Ban Resolution”, we both decided to cut our losses and hang up. So … the UN is going door-to door collecting firearms, huh? That is certainly news to me. I did a little research on the NRA’s wild-sounding claim, and found nothing to back it up, save maybe the existence of a UN commission looking into curbing international trafficking of illegal firearms. Hardly the shocking scenario posed in Adam’s question. But that’s what the National Rifle Association is all about these days: shock value. They have made it their mission to drum up as much hysteria as possible from their members in order to advance their agenda. And advance their agenda they have. In the last legislative session here in Alaska, the NRA was resoundingly successful in pushing fairly radical new gun legislation. They got the so-called “castle doctrine” law passed, which allows citizens (who already do not need a concealed weapons permit) to shoot first and ask questions later when they feel threatened by an attacker. The law applies to just about any public place. This law, an extension of existing law as it applies to one’s home, might make sense to a degree. But one serious loophole that the NRA successfully left open was the fact that an innocent bystander, if harmed by a trigger-happy street vigilante with poor aim, no longer has any legal recourse to seek compensation. The “shooters”, under the new law, cannot be sued. The NRA was also instrumental in lobbying our representatives in Juneau to throw out the right of Alaska’s boroughs and municipalities to enact any firearms laws that are more restrictive than the state’s. As a result, it is now legal in Anchorage for people to carry firearms (again, without a concealed weapons permit) into a bar. Anchorage Police Chief Walt Monegan said of the new legislation, “"There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights. But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue." Mixing alcohol and guns sound like a recipe for disaster to you, too? Thank the NRA. There aren’t too many “gun control nuts” in Alaska, and I certainly don’t consider myself one. I was raised a hunter and am a former US Army infantryman. I understand that the right to possess firearms is protected by the US Constitution and that, especially here in Alaska, guns are often a necessary part of everyday life. The National Rifle Association, however, with its ever more extremist agenda, its powerful lobbying for ill-conceived laws, and its calls to alarm over imaginary threats, is starting to look like a bunch of “gun nuts” to me. Aaron Selbig is an activist and media junkie who resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage. He is the winner of a 2006 Alaska Press Club award for Best Editorial Writing, host of KUDO 1080 AM's 'The Aaron Selbig Show' and a co-founder of Insurgent49. Aaron may be contacted at editor@insurgent49.com |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
September 29, 2006 September 22, 2006 September 15, 2006 September 8, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
|||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
||||||||
