Michael Seth Stewart, PhD., an Alabama native and English instructor at the University of Alabama and one clueless collectivist. His email, for those of you who would like to write a respectful rejoinder, is firstname.lastname@example.org.
NOTE: Well, my letter to the editor of AL.com below got bounced so I sent this directly to Stewart. Hope he likes it.
Michael Seth Stewart writes that he is "deeply frightened by the increasingly familiar gun massacres in our schools around the country" and thus demands that "Alabamians must stand up for 'sensible gun reform.'" Collectivists always use carefully crafted weasel words to frame the debate in order to win it before it begins. Let me translate his demands into plain English.
"Sensible gun reform," Stewart reveals, consists of "closing the gun show loophole." (Translation: federal seizure of the right to trade in firearms between private individuals -- not even King George III was so grasping.) It also requires "a sensible limit on types of guns that can be purchased." (Translation: the banning of all semi-automatic firearms.) And finally, he demands "universal background checks" (Translation: the creation of a federal registry of all firearm owners.)
He demands this, he says, because he is "deeply frightened" by the mass shootings occurring in the criminal-enabling free-fire areas that he and his collectivist comrades are pleased to call "gun free zones." Stewart wails that “we are in a state of emergency.”
No, we’re not, not yet. But if he gets his way we WILL be in a bloody civil war. Stewart and his ilk should forgo such tyrannical proposals for recent experience proves that the Law of Unintended Consequences still rules.
Since Sandy Hook, there have been a number of states that have passed laws consistent with his demands, notably Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Colorado, Washington and Oregon. Yet in each state these laws have been nullified by armed civil disobedience and NONE are currently being enforced by the same politicians who passed them. How do I know this? Because I have been honored to be a recognized leader of the national We Will Not Comply movement. We have publicly smuggled thousands of banned magazines into CT, CO, and NY. In CT the noncompliance rate for the registration of semi-automatic rifles is thought to be in the neighborhood of 80%. In New York it is 90%, aided by local sheriffs who have put the state police on notice that if they come into their counties to arrest anyone under the SAFE Act that it is the state police who will be arrested. We have flouted Bloomberg's recent background check laws in both WA and OR with armed demonstrations on the steps of those state capitols and we've even held a background-check-free gun show in open defiance. And the politicians don't know whether to defecate or go blind. For this is dangerous ground, making millions of heretofore peaceable citizens into instant felons with nothing to lose -- VERY dangerous ground. It requires only one Waco-type raid to set off a national conflagration.
In the meantime, we have proven that there is no tyrannical law that can be passed that cannot be nullified by armed civil disobedience. If you want to disarm us you must come and take our firearms by force. We will not cooperate in our own enslavement. In short, you must kill us. And we will not go willingly into Mr. Stewart’s collectivist good night. So advocates of further citizen disarmament must ask themselves, how many of us -- along with our families and other innocents -- are they willing to see dead in the civil war that they start in order to accomplish their "benevolent" goal? And how many of their side are they willing to sacrifice in order to win the civil war they start? Will Mr. Stewart kindly do the math and let us know? In the meantime such would-be tyrants should be careful what they wish for, lest they get it.