January 27, 2013

• Gun Control Thoroughly Smacked Down

  I have been putting this off for a long time, so I finally decided to just sit down and do it.  I am going to thoroughly pound all of the snot out of the arguments for gun control.

  But first of all let us be clear on one thing, in spite of whatever arguments and emotional appeals the left puts forth as reasons, the one and only true reason for gun control is to take away the power of the people to resist a tyrannical government.  Gun control is 100% about people control, and nothing more.  To any thinking person the hypocrisy of the politicians advocating gun control should be as apparent as the sun.  These are people who live their lives surrounded by armed guards.  They want us to give up our guns, but they and their families will still retain their armed guards.  A real leader leads by example, an oppressive dictator rules by force.

   

  That being said, there are many people on the left who are thoroughly in love with the idea of gun control.  When talking about the left wing leaders we know it is all about people control, but when it comes to the left wing followers reasons vary.  Most left wing followers will go along with whatever their leaders say, because they genuinely respect and trust their leaders.  I also believe that some of them advocate gun out of spite.  They know that gun ownership is important to us, therefore they want to impenge upon it.  It is the same attitude one finds in 3rd grade playground bullies, who kick over a sand castle built by one of their peers.  The sandcastle isn’t hurting the bully, and it has nothing at all to do with him, but the bully gets an emotional high from inflicting misery on others who he feels disdain or jealousy towards.  The mentality is the same.  Then there are some leftists who generally think that gun control is a good thing which will actually lead to a safer society.  These are relatively few in number, but their belief that gun control will actually help improve things stems from good intentions + an inability to understand how things actually work.

  Now let’s look at the arguments:

  “The government only wants to ban certain types of weapons.”–That is not really an argument, and in fact even if it were not true it would be irrelevant, because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not make any statement about what sort of weapons we “need” or should be allowed to have, and it does not include any qualifiers based on weapon type or personal occupation. The fact is that they want to take away our freedom a little at a time. If they try to take away everything at once there would be too much of an uproar, so they chisel at our freedoms a little bit at a time, in the name of public good, and that way they can also create social pressure against the people who call them out on what they are doing.

  “Guns kill people.”–No, people kill people.  You can take a fully loaded gun and leave it on a table all day if you want.  That gun is not going to kill anyone.  Leave it there for 1000 years, and unless someone disturbs it, then it’s not going to bother, kill, or oppress a single individual.  The gun is only a problem if someone picks it up and decides to attack someone with it, and just in case someone does that, I would like to be ready with my own gun so that I can get him before he gets me or someone I care about.

   

  “How do I know you won’t go crazy and kill a bunch of people?”–Yes, some people actually do say this.  There are quite a few equally valid ways to respond to this one.  First of all, how do I know that the government, which will still have guns of course, will not go crazy?  Maybe they will go on a killing rampage (which has happened so many times)?  If they do go on a rampage how will I defend myself if they have guns and I do not?  It is also worth mentioning that when governments go on a killing rampage, it is on a much larger scale than a lone shooter.  We can protect ourselves from lone shooters by having more law abiding citizens arm themselves, and that is infinitely preferable to a police state. 

  I don’t know why people on the left don’t think about that.  Governments are just people with no one governing them.  They are not any more inherently virtuous or intelligent than the average person.  Anyone who thinks that they are has bought into the concept of the Ubermensch.  I reject that concept.  Those in government are not a superior breed of man, so if I, or any other regular law abiding citizen, can go crazy, then so can they.  If A = B and B = C then A = C.  Simple logic.

  But there are other concerns that this question raises.  How do I know that once no one has guns you won’t go on a rampage with a knife, a baseball bat, or a board with a nail in it?  What else should we ban for public safety?  Should we ban baseball bats, kitchen knives, camping knives, flammable materials, nails, hammers, saws, axes, cars?  What about banning martial arts studios and lifting weights?  What about banning hands?  Or better yet, why not just ban everyone from living, then we don’t have to worry about anyone hurting anyone because there will be no one around to get hurt?  If I wanted to go on a rampage I could do it with a knife, a broken bottle, or a brick, and it would be all the easier if there was no one with a gun around.  If there is one person with a gun nearby then that rampage is going to end pretty quick, but my point here is that guns do not make people go on killing rampages.  Unbalanced mental states make people go on rampages, and the gun is not what causes that mental state.  Maybe we should look at perscription drugs and some of the other crap that’s out there.  The question itself is thoroughly asinine and self refuting.  You don’t really know what your neighbor is going to do, the best you can do is be prepared for them when they do it.

  “The only reason someone has a gun is because want to kill people.”–Again, no, not necessarily, and there are lots of different ways to kill people that don’t involve guns.  Some people own guns because they like to hunt, others like to shoot (gun ranges), and other people want to have them so that they can defend their home from intruders.  A lot can happen before the police get there, and I’m not going to take any risks with the safety of my family (unlike that left wing statist shill Cenk Ugyar).  If some guy breaks into my house and starts doing something to my wife then he is probably going to die.  I can put a bullet through his head, or I can put my fist through his head.  The first option entails less personal risk for me, and shortens the amount of time he has to do something to my wife.  Also, if he has a gun and I don’t, then the circumstances favor the criminal.  That is a scenario which should never be allowed to happen.  I should be able to defend myself, and yes, I would kill an intruder without feeling an ounce of remorse, especially if he is trying to do something to my wife.   I don’t feel any remorse when I kill roaches or mice, and they are also unwanted intruders.  I don’t care if my having a gun hurts anyone else’s feelings or sensibilities.  As long as you don’t try to hurt me or my family then you need not feel my wrath. 

  “Well you don’t really need a semi-automatic weapon anyways.”–The 2nd Amendment trumps what you think I need.   But to be fair, I am going to explain why I might need a weapon like that.  The US government is in debt, and the number of people depending on continued government aid for survival is growing. There are two reasons it is growing, one is because of immigration, and another is because the welfare people are having lots of children. They are having lots of children because the government pays them more money for having more kids. Eventually the government is going to run out of money to pay these people with.  The problem with redistribution of wealth is that eventually you run out of wealth to redistribute.  When that happens, all of these people are going to go marauding out of their homes looking for food. First they are going to attack and raid the stores and restaurants in their neighborhoods, then they are going to move out and start invading homes. They are going to rob, rape, and kill.  Now, if there are a few of you and lots of enemies you need something to even the odds.  A single shot gun isn’t going to be as effective against a large crowd. You might kill a few of them but your attacks may only serve to enrage them rather than warn them off.  Now, if you have a semi-automatic or a fully automatic weapon then you can strafe them down from a distance, and take out large numbers of them before they can approach you. You can bolt the doors and camp out on the roof of your house or on the second floor and mow them down as they come.  Another option is buck shot, which you can fire into a crowd and hit lots of people at the same time, but I believe the targets have to be fairly close in order for that to be effective.

  One way or another the welfare is going to have to stop. Either it will stop when our sorry politicians decide to actually be leaders and put the well being of the nation ahead of their careers, or it will stop when the money runs dry. If it stops when the money runs dry then the later it stops the larger the mobs of raiders are going to be.  They will go on a rampage, we have seen repeatedly that the lazier elements of any given society go on a rampage when their welfare money gets cut off.  Typically they destroy their own neighborhoods, but give them enough time and enough need and they will branch out. 

  Another use for automatic weapons would be to protect ourselves against invasion.  It is a mistake to assume that the US could never be invaded, or that our military will always be able to protect us. The Roman Empire was around a lot longer than the US, and the US is already exhibiting a lot of the same signs that were evident in the Empire before it’s fall.  People in the Roman Empire never thought it would fall, and it was around a lot longer than the US.  The reason why Egypt and Syria are Islamic today is because the people of those countries had become 100% dependent upon the Roman (in this case Byzantine/Eastern Roman) army to defend them. Once that army was no longer capable of defending them, the Arab invaders poured in, and the people of Egypt and Syria were 100% at their mercy.  Today both of those countries are dismal unfree hellholes.  The same thing could happen to the US.

  “But countries where people have no guns are so much safer than countries where there are lots of guns.”–Oh really?  So India is so much safer than Switzerland?  Is Russia so much safer?  Gun control always favors the criminals over the law abiding citizens.  I have been to India.  It is very difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns there, only the very rich can afford a gun permit.  Rape and violent crime are absolutely epidemic there, and it’s not because Indians are less civilized, because Indian civilization is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and India is a production mill for doctors and engineers.  The problem is that people there cannot defend themselves, and everyone knows it.  So here is the alternative to the 2nd Amendment when it comes to home defense.  I took this picture when I was there:

   

  No it’s not a prison, or a military complex, it’s just a typical wall that goes around the typical home there for protection.  In this case, there are shards of glass embedded in the top of the concrete wall.  Other houses had metal spikes and sometimes barbed wire going along the top.  My guess is that the metal spikes are more expensive, but I could be wrong about that.  In India the terrorists have no problem getting guns.  Just a bit north of where my fiance lives there is a group called the Naxalites, which are communist terrorists that live in the forests of Chattisgarh.  Maybe the government could take them out, but the regular people can’t do anything against them if they decide to come to town.  There are also Islamic terror groups operating in India, and they have guns as well.  Indians have to rely completely on the police and their concrete walls for protection against criminal elements and home defense.

  I was surprised that our media decided to write a story about that rape in Delhi.  I am of course talking about the incident where six men raped a woman and sodomized her with a metal rod, severely mangling her to the point where she died later.  Of course when they did cover it they tried to put a left wing feminist spin on the issue, talking about how the Indian culture is too patriarchal and they need to have social changes.  But the fact is, there is nothing wrong with Indian culture.  There are bad people in every culture, and in places where conditions are favorable to criminality there is going to be more criminality.  Our left wing media talks about feminism, yet omits the fact that there are women in India campaigning FOR having guns.  Why?  Because what happened to that woman could have been prevented by six rounds, and anyone with average level IQ and a functioning brain ought to be able to realize that.

   

  The best way to prevent crime, is to enable law abiding citizens to defend themselves.  If gun control really helps then Chicago should be a paradise and Kennesaw Georgia should be a dismal violent hellhole, but in fact the reverse is true.  Liberal claims about gun control are simply not borne out by reality. 

  • 7:13 pm
  • 10 Comments