“There is no reason that sensible guns laws cannot coexist with the Second Amendment,” Carole Stiller writes at nj.com. “Who in his right mind can give a logical reason for members of the general public to own AK-47s, AR-15s, 50-caliber rifles?” And there you have it: gun control advocates’ three-point rationale for their anti-gun agenda: 1. Gun control laws don’t violate Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. 2. People who don’t agree with our list of limitations on gun rights are dangerous gun nuts. 3. We’re not listening to gun nuts. This is not what I’d call a sound basis for a “conversation” about guns. But what can you talk about when gun control advocates can’t see the obvious . . .

The NRA’s Veep may look and sound like an undertaker at a public speaking class, but Wayne LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun” reminder was spot on. Over a million defensive gun uses a year says that individual gun owners are still a force—if not the force—against criminal violence. And that’s without considering the importance of deterrence.

The funny (peculiar) thing about deterrence: it’s damn near invisible. How can you calculate the number of “hot” burglaries that don’t happen because potential home invaders worry that a family may be armed against attack? By the same token, how can you measure the loss of liberty we haven’t experienced because we’re armed against our own government?

Gun control advocates like the group responsible for the protests at this week’s NRA press conference can’t begin to fathom the idea that privately-held firearms are a benefit to society.

CODEPINK’s supporters need only look south of the border for “what happens next”: a literal enactment of the NRA’s slogan “If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.” Drug thugs are murdering Mexican defenseless citizens in their tens of thousands. They’re being intimidated, tortured, raped and slaughtered. Judges, journalists, law enforcement officers—anyone representing the rule of law are terminated with extreme prejudice.

The government—the force that gun control advocates seek to empower—is a co-conspirator in this literal death of democracy. The Mexican police and federales are no more accountable for intimidation, torture, rape and murder of law-abiding citizens than the drug cartels. Gun control isn’t just ineffective, it’s the first step on the road to chaos. And much, much worse.

So, to answer CODEPINK’s question . . .

Yes, saying we need more guns to stop violence is like saying we need more bombs to prevent war. Our freedom from war and personal violence depends on the concept of mutually assured destruction. Deterrence. No A-bomb, no world peace. No armed civilians, no check on criminal ambition.

Of course, we’re not always free from war or personal violence, no matter how well we arm ourselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. In the case of war, we must rely on our armed forces. In terms of criminal attack (e.g., spree killing), we could disarm the population and rely entirely on government agents to protect us from lethal threats. But that doesn’t mean we should.

Two facts worth considering:

1.  The Columbine killers perpetuated their heinous crime during the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban.

2. First responders first responded to the Sandy Hook Elementary School twenty-minutes after the initial 911 call.

In short, be careful what you wish for.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. “Sensible gun laws” constitute cultural genocide. That’s the whole point of “sensible gun laws.” They’re the 21st Century equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws.

  2. The morons at CP don’t understand that if the U.S. didn’t have superior firepower, that we wouldn’t exist. The rest of the world would have over run us by now and we would all be a bunch of no good COMMIES. Let’s get rid of our military and see how long we could survive.

  4. Mutually assured destruction (more bombs) prevented the cold war from going hot. So yes you f’n a-hole more bombs do prevent war.

  5. Two kinds of people in the world, the kind that think THINGS are the problem and the kind that think PEOPLE are the problem. The THING folks think that THINGS create problems when some people don’t have enough THINGS and other people have more THINGS, so they want to even out the THINGS. For THING people, humans emerge from the womb essentially identical and are functionally interchangeable except for their THINGS. It is the THINGS that determine behavior and thus the THINGS that need to be controlled. A lot of the THING folks believe that the government should be in charge of distributing THINGS.

    PEOPLE folks look at the actions of individuals and make decisions based on the actions of others as to whether individual PEOPLE are a problem or not. Things exist, but it’s how PEOPLE use them that determines success or failure and danger or safety. PEOPLE are able to manipulate THINGS to ends not forseen by the distributors or manufacturers of THINGS. Fertilizer into bombs. Student loans into arms and armor, in the case of Aurora. Legally-owned and registered firearms that comply in every way with the laws passed by the THING believers in CT into a massacre.

    My observation is that THINGS are never as dangerous as the PEOPLE who use them. Unfortunately we have a government that is all about THINGS now, elected by a majority that believes that the maldsitribution of THINGS is the issue and that to address the PEOPLE issue is discriminatory and evil.

    This is a fundamental worldview problem that you will not fix with editorials or rally-the-troops articles like this one. People have to want to change their worldview, and are pretty much loath to do so in my experience. I have had discussions with a lot of political liberals (some of which are fairly solid gun control opponents, believe it or not) and the best you can do is to put up your evidence and let them decide, then meet them at the ballot box and fight there as hard as you can, legally and peacefully.

    • “I have had discussions with a lot of political liberals (some of which are fairly solid gun control opponents, believe it or not)…”

      A liberal who opposes gun control is probably the closest thing you’ll find to a TRUE liberal. Unlike the collectivist progressivism that defines the so-called liberal side of American politics, true liberalism respects the individual right to life, liberty, and property. The men who framed the Constitution and led the Revolutionary War were liberals.

      Neither of the major political parties represent the liberal ideals this country was founded on.

  6. “The funny (peculiar) thing about deterrence: it’s damn near invisible. How can you calculate the number of “hot” burglaries that don’t happen because potential home invaders worry that a family may be armed against attack? By the same token, how can you measure the loss of liberty we haven’t experienced because we’re armed against our own government?”

    This.

    Unfortunately, there are none so blind as those who will not see. They are impenetrable to logic, reason, the preponderance of evidence, the lessons of history or truck loads of data. They are much like a primitive cargo cult led by their shamans in the media, academia and politics.

    They’re not looking for a conversation at all. It’s a lecture and we all had better just shut up and take notes.

    It’s gonna get rough.

  7. “The funny (peculiar) thing about deterrence: it’s damn near invisible.”
    — True. It is difficult to measure. Sadly and tragically it becomes usually more measurable after gun rights become more and more restricted and the more draconian anti-gun laws become the rule of the land.

    I just read up on Code Pink at wiki. It seems like they live for rebelling and protesting against everything.
    Below is a link to a photo of a Code Pink protest in front of the White House in 2006 with a large banner quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous advice: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Code_Pink_July_4.jpg

  8. head stuck in the sand mentality, if we are all nice they won’t atack us vs. if we have the means to defend ourselves (bombs) they wont attack us (thereby preventing a war). The problem with the mentality if we are nice they won’t attack us? Look at Germany and Poland at the start of WW2

    • I did too, unfortunately. I want my 10 minutes back. Why did you waste my time with yet another anti – gun screed?

      • I am tired of wasting my time reading drivel from gun-control proponents that have no education or knowledge of firearms and ammunition.

        If you can’t be bothered to learn about the subject you can’t go around declaring what must be done about it.

  10. Funny, you don’t see people displaying “this house is a gun free zone” signs on their front lawn. Maybe we can create some for Code Pink members and every other gun control advocate for an educational experience.

  11. I guess now that there is a Democrat commander-in-chief CP has lots of free time on their hands.

  12. This is just another kookie totalitarian time-waster. CAN YOU NOT SEE the objective is to WEAR YOU DOWN with forcing you into RATIONAL INTERCHANGES WITH IRRATIONAL PEOPLE?

    YOU CANNOT FORCE THEM INTO RATIONALITY. Stop letting them drain your decent energy.

      • Good link to Gun politics in Mexico

        “By the 1960s, fear of the growing anti-government sentiment and the growing number of citizens arming themselves, prompted the government to modify Article 10 of the Constitution and to enact the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. And so begun a systematic disarmament of the population by limiting gun ownership to small-caliber handguns, heavily restricting the right to carry outside the home, and ending a cultural attachment to firearms…”

        “This swift change resulting in sweeping powers over gun control were the result of the strong presidentialism that has traditionally marked Mexican politics, giving the sitting president control and cooperation of Congress to change present laws or enact new laws.”

  14. Bombs? “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Anybody who’s not prepared and equipped to fight is just a victim.

  17. A great number of people are long on Utopian dreams but really short on knowledge of history. It is as simple as that.

  18. Send Code Pink, the media, and politicians a message. Join the NRA and get your friends to join also. An estimated 90 million gun owners and only 4 million NRA members? We can do better than this. Join the NRA now!

  19. Actually, more guns to stop the violence is something everyone agrees on. What we’re arguing about is who has them. CODEPINK and the anti-gunners think that those guns should only be in the hands of the government, and while children are being slaughtered over 20 minutes by whatever means the killer happens to have brought along, be it a gun, gasoline bomb, a machete, or a lead pipe, they and those around them should just sit patiently waiting for those government guns to arrive.

    The NRA and other pro-gun people think that the guns should be the from the beginning, in the hands of private citizens so when the would be killer shows up with a gun, gasoline bomb, a machete, or a pipe, they can confront him with a realistic chance of stopping him before any innocents are killed.

  20. CODEPINK members are the protestors that disrupted the NRA Press Conference.
    Their real name should be “Code Pinko Commie Lying Rat Bastards”. They’re just more of the Anti-Liberty Progressive Totalitarians that want to decide what everyone else should do. They are the ones with the blood of innocent people on their hands…that’s where the “pink” comes from.

  21. The Bill of Rights doesn’t require us to state a logical reason for any of our individual rights. That’s the difference between a right an an entitlement.

    And by the way, I didn’t ‘NEED’ to say that. I just felt like saying it.

  22. “We need more bombs to prevent war…” remind me how many direct conflicts the US and USSR got into between WW2 and 1991? I’m sure that had nothing to do with the 10000 warheads each side had pointed at each other’s heads.

Comments are closed.