I found this comment underneath the article Minn. Lawmakers Hear From Gun Violence Prevention Group at minnesota.cbslocal.com. Unsurprisingly, the article’s author (not pictured above) neglected to mention the number of Protect Minnesota participants in that discussion. Anyway, it’s important to note – again, still – that gun control proponents who claim to respect the Second Amendment do not. They don’t respect Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They are pro-civilian disarmament. Gun control groups’ leaders are careful not to reveal their true intentions. Their deeply deluded utopian statist followers, not so much . . .
1. The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.
2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
4. The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.
5. Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.
6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.
If you ‘live’ in a blue state you may be part of the problem.
If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, or a rino, the problem is Part-Of-You, you are permanently Damaged and you need to tell your mother that she now owes us one abortion.
P.S. – the blue is from strangulation, bend your knees a little more.
meant – bation not “- lation”
spell check ?
See: Rush Limbaugh on “retroactive abortion”…
Hmmm, will check that out. My own dad used to say that he would be for abortion if they would raise the cut-off age to 16, thankfully I outlived that.
MN is way blue, and they will probably all perish at the hands of their Somali Mall Pirates. I’ll hang back until the screaming dies down and cover the padre while he does the last rites thingy, but I won’t waste brass trying to save those begging for it. ‘The enemy of my enemy, if not my outspoken friend, is, also, my enemy. If my “friends” have trouble explaining our friendship to their friends, then they have to tie a pork chop around their neck, because that is their dog.’ [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]
I agree. Chris Kyke may have been a sheepdog. But me, I am a tramp. I will protect my lady and what is mine. To hell with you if you won’t do the same for yourself.
“To hell with you if you won’t do the same for yourself.”
That’s a mighty neighborly attitude you have, there.
Some folks CAN’T do for themselves for whatever reason. How are you going to know that in the heat of an event?
Exactly JR in the NC
That’s why they need to pop their head out now. I’d swim a few yards down to the sinking Titanic, if I thought they would let go of the rail. It’s the same argument as every other damn thing. Take Welfare for example:
“Help should be help. Example (hypothetically): if you fall down a well, you will need help. Seeing your impending ruin, I will consider my own resources, well-being, and probability of encountering similar ruin in deciding what to do. I will throw you a rope (help), provided my certainty that you won’t pull me in with you, and that you won’t push me in when I get you out. If you were stuck in a well and kept asking for more rope, I would eventually have to hand you down my end. If you were stuck in a well and asked the Author to hand you down things that would help to make the well more livable, the Author would use you as a living display of stupidity, a warning to posterity, evidence of a cause of ruin [1]. If, after extrication, you repeatedly fell in a well despite the warning of experience the Author would be forced to avoid the danger of you entirely. [TERMS, J. M. Thomas R., 2012 pg. 67-68]”
(that which you ignore, that which you tolerate, and
that which you promote, define you equal to your own action or inaction) [TERMS, J. M. Thomas R., 2012 pg. 43]
History as so written
Too many people in the well have a 100lb rock coming.
I see that you alone, Joe R., cite some obscure text (?) that you tag with “TERMS, J. M. Thomas R., 2012.” You’ve done it a lot over several months. What in the heck is this reference? Is this something well known?
As a Minnesotan, I can say your judgement of the state being way blue is completely false. The problem is that the majority of the population is transplants located in the twin cities area. As you can clearly see in the picture provided blatantly a hipster.
As was shown in the elections throughout the state a lot of red got voted in, the twin cities itself is just the blue stronghold and that’ll blow up real quick when the mall gets attacked. You can’t throw a coin without pegging 10 people in the head on a saturday so you can imagine what will happen with the taxi drivers show up to shoot. Sadly if the twin cities officials would get their heads out of their arse you’d have at least a thousand armed citizens there day and night for free.
Dearest Arsh,
I pray I stand corrected. I know of the Twin Cities problem, and I hope it doesn’t need a “Mall” type fix to force them to raise themselves off their nooses and zip their pants. I’m also pretty certain that such a late ‘wake-up call’ would become a true disaster, as I am sure that milk would be dispersed, and glasses would be raised high.
Grasshopper, as with everything else I’ve borrowed, with [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012] I am just attempting to avoid plagiarism . You can borrow my copy, but first. . .
you must take the stone from my hand. . .
Arsh: “…the twin cities itself is just the blue stronghold and that’ll blow up real quick when the mall gets attacked. ”
Just like NYC became a hotbed of conservatism after the Twin Towers were felled?
@Steve: That’s a very good point.
I know you are citing a work/book/whatever, the problem is, we can’t seem to find out just what that work is. Google doesn’t seem to know a thing about it.
Dear God protect me from troglodytes who make idiotic sculpture…
The idiocy and simplicity is mind-numbing.
It’s almost as if it were a coloring book written for children…
Dude resembles a Pan Troglodyte…
That sure sounds like an interesting view from the back of his/her unicorn.
I’m pretty sure people with this kind of attitude is how thousands of Jews ended up in rail cars. Today it’s inanimate objects, tomorrow it’s groups of people they don’t like.
It already is groups of people they don’t like. It’s just that those inanimate objects stand the way of accomplishing that.
In other words, your two thoughts are not separable; they are part of the worldview.
6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.
Wow. What a way to completely ignore the purpose of the Second Amendment.
I hate how we are expected to cave to these idiots’ irrational fear.
“I’m scared so you shouldnt have guns.”
Is what all their arguments boil down to
Yep. If they had such an irrational fear of boats, they’d want to intentionally put holes in ours. If they want a leaky boat, that’s their choice but they can’t go around sinking other people’s boats so that they “feel” better.
Hmm, I remember the declaration of independence saying slightly less than what he put out there…
You’re missing the right to feel a certain way bit that was written in invisible ink. Only antis have the ability to see it. 😉
You need special rose colored glasses. You get them from Unicorns R Us.
Or maybe it was in Roosevelt’s 2nd bill of rights, the right not to be scared.
Nice! I picked up on that a long time ago. FDR’s famous “nothing to fear but fear itself” speech is touted as one of the greatest lines utter out of a Progressive pie hole.
The first time I heard that I scratched my head an said, “so your saying I can wade naked through a pit of vipers and as long as I am not afraid then I will be okay?”
This world absent of fear that the Liberals pine for only exists in the Matrix. God gave us fear and fear has kept our species as well as others, alive.
Can you imagine a prey never fearing the lion? Not only would the prey all be exterminated but after a while the predators would starve.
Fear is good.
+100!!! My thoughts exactly!
Why do these naive, do-gooding, busy-bodies always assume that government is like some kindly force of nature that gives goodies to the poor, ball-busts the mean greedy rich Capitalists, and wants to turn the country into a Disneyland paradise, of only we’d let them. Why can’t they ever stop to consider the risks of handing government absolute power? Why can’t they at least try to understand the concern of the Founders …the dangers against which they so carefully crafted the Constitution?
Although I am concerned somewhat about ordinary crime, it is something I am willing and believe my family, friends, and I are reasonably capable of defending against. We can choose, within the confines of financial concerns, those places where we might be less likely to encounter ordinary criminals and defend ourselves when we do encounter ordinary crime. We weigh the risks and find our choices acceptable to ourselves. However, when it comes to government encroachment and tyranny, it’s not something that my family, friends, and I can readily and successfully defend against alone. There are very few real American frontiers remaining to which to escape government intrusion. We rely on a larger body of people to help keep government in check. That’s where the spirit behind the Second Amendment makes the most sense to me.
6 or 6 are straw man arguments.
I believe in the free exercise of the First Amendment…..unless you disagree with me.
Oh … like in California.
A very open minded and tolerant state … so long as you have the right opinions.
1. lolz da cops and guvment won’t be gun free
2. da rich won’t eether, body gaurds ftw
tree. it will make it easier for us to control u
4. if you are a woman or weak due your a screwed (raped) unless you are rich/politician
5. freedom is soooooooooooo inconvienient.
6. we owe it to the children after all they totes don’t want to grow up in a nation that respects freedom.
Why do these people always assume we have guns to defend ourselves exclusively from other people with guns? Being shot isn’t the only valid way to die.
Good point.
And one the antis studiously ignore. For them, you aren’t really dead unless you were killed by a gun. And if you weren’t killed by a gun–you were killed by one anyway (see Elliot Roger’s three roomates).
Apparently if a person is surrounded by gang members, they have absolutely nothing to worry about if the gang members only have knives. And fists. And brass knuckles. And tire irons. No worries!
Still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment. We keep fighting for this right to self defense with a firearm. And sometimes we win. Yay!
But the 2nd Amendment is to have an armed society powerful enough to thwart tyranny. Remember that well regulated militia part?
Well in order to do that then we can not forget to fight for military arms. Bazookas included Ms. Feinstein.
That’s right. If the Progressives start their “Great Leap Forward” I want to make sure I still have a vote they’ll count.
How does this man think all guns could be removed without mandatory searches of all houses nearly daily by armed troops. For at least a decade, and that’s if a snitch culture is formed.
Guns are easy to hide, and easy to make. What’s not easy is bringing back the lives of all those that will die at the hands of a government that thinks it knows best.
@Michael in GA: 🙂
Yeah but it’s the same logic when somebody uses a gun in self defense against an unarmed assailant. As if a 250lb attacker has fluffy pillows for fists.
Pretty weak…
There’s so much stupid going on in those statements that the author just earned an extra chromosome.
The day those fucking retards understand that the government is not there to protect, but to subdue those precious rights we all love and cherish, they may finally understand and accept the gun for what it is: the only “voice” tyrants will listen to.
Without looking at any of the data available, aka reality, these all seem sensible. They are far from reality and are as utopian as can be, though, so ultimately a waste of time to consider.
Can we start listing “six good reasons cake should not make us fat”, or “six good reasons we shouldn’t age”?
So much stupid.
The human “animal” is the physically least ferocious/fearsome “animal” in the animal kingdom. What separates man from all other animals is his brain – which man used, centuries ago, to create gunpowder.
Accidental deaths due to firearms are a statistical non-event. And what is “necessary” about riding the Shuttle into space?
I suppose the unicorns will come down off of rainbows, and magically make all guns the world over disappear in a cloud of pixie dust?
So how do you correct such a “mistake”? Firearms have been a part of society for almost a millennium, and the knowledge of how to create gunpowder can’t be unlearned.
And why is the mere existence of firearms a “mistake”? Firearms secured our freedom during the American Revolution. Firearms are used millions of times defensively every year, to prevent crime.
Actually, I can think of 100,000,000 people in the United States alone who would reject your premise. Further, there is no such thing as, nor will there ever be, a “gun-free society”. If you want to prevent gun violence, deal with violent criminals. “Gun violence” will disappear.
A right to “peace of mind”? Sorry, kid; there is no such thing. The world is full of danger, and a life of liberty assumes a great deal of risk.
Making guns illegal does not make the public square safer. I present New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. as evidence.
Enjoy your unicorn fantasies, Bronie.
“I suppose the unicorns will come down off of rainbows, and magically make all guns the world over disappear in a cloud of pixie dust?”
And knives, too, I guess.
My cousin was raped in her home by an intruder. At knife point, not gun point.
She got, and stayed, armed after that. “Never again” indeed.
She learned.
Crossbows can be very effective and nearly silent in making someone ‘drop dead’ at a distance.
Better unlearn knives as well, with no exceptions, goodby surgery.
A length of cord and a bit of leather can make a stone move rather quickly…
Well said, sir.
The “irony” is that forcible disarmament would have to occur at gunpoint. Even, many would fail because cops would refuse, and/or would be gunned down for enforcing and unconstitutional order. The redcoats thought they could disarm the colonists in short order, and history is pretty clear how that turned out.
I gotta tell you Chip, listening to these anti-gun idiots regurgitate their fantasy dribble is exhausting when one lives in the world of logic based on life experience and human reality.
It’s not word for word, but you pretty much beat me to that exact response.
Thanks for somewhat addressing his points with something other than ‘this is stupid drivel/the level of stupid displayed/if you’re liberal you’re part of the problem/etc’.
3.
The highly justifiable need to defend yourself against others can be easily extinguished by extinguishing others from society.
Same logic extended to the real problem
I was going to address that, too, although it is difficult to decide among so much extreme fail. But I am willing to consider his premise, here. He just forgot to include (or perhaps space was limited) precisely how he is going to so “easily” extinguish guns from society. In fact, if he would just come on down and try to easily extinguish mine, he might have a different attitude about “easy”. If he survived.
Good job, now give me 6 reasons that cars shoud run on good vibes instead of gasoline
1. … and larger, stronger, younger male humans are more dangerous than those who are some combination of smaller, weaker, older, and perhaps female as well. Guns offer the means by which everyone can be afforded the means to protect and defend themselves against those prone to violence.
2. … and nobody needs a private swimming pool, or private transportation for that matter. It is not “necessary” to send people into space. Surely by eliminating these things we can end the resulting tragedies which ensue. If not, why not?
3. … the point assumes that it is possible to “eliminate” firearms from our midst, without offering any coherent means as to how. Even where plainly illegal, firearms are found in the hands of criminals, but not in the hands of those who would be otherwise violent and law-abiding. How does actively creating this disparity of force improve things?
4. How can we do this? Is there even a hint of a clue as to how this can be accomplished without the resulting disparity of force suggested in #3?
5. Whether few would argue it is a non-point. Reality is not subject to a vote. I for one would argue that it is a very bad thing to have a disarmed, law-abiding citizenry for all sorts of good reasons. You’ve admitted this by noting a “highly justifiable need”, without any coherent sense of the resulting disparity of force which would ensue from taking away the right to pursue that need.
6. There is no threat posed “by guns”, only by those who are prone to violence and criminal behavior, some of whom use guns in the pursuit of their aims. To argue that the government protect our inalienable rights, by taking away the means by which they can be defended, is a self-defeating argument.
Here is a place where the residents have no guns what so ever. Everyone going in and out is checked. One would think it was the safest place on earth. Wrong, it’s murder rate is three times higher than the national average.
http://www.times-news.com/news/local_news/md-prison-homicides-almost-three-times-national-average/article_cfac40b2-b720-11e4-9965-33789793fcd2.html
Just the place the Leftists want us all to be in….. a prison.
The question is asked, and answer demanded. How Long Will America Last?
“If the answer is “longer than the lifetime of the author”, I contend that America has already fallen, for there is absolutely no certainty except for the permanent fragility of Society (further still any of its trappings or encapsulation), the ignorance of which only beckons Armageddon. AND it (America) requires the very diligence of my mutual support. Therefore your question should only be “how long will we carry this forward?” for which we will supply the answer moment to moment. From this standpoint it should be clear that the rights of citizens are completely separate and distinct from the longevity of America [which] cannot curtail them (either). We have not the need of America except under which we collectively say that our ground under GOD is hallowed, and blessed with zero tolerance of extra-Societal incursion. Continued: NO Government can guarantee its own perpetuity, Aske then, the question again,“How long will America last?” and let the answer fall as mute silence. Therefore America should not disarm its citizenry [you and I as a pair and as individuals] up until the point at which it (America) cannot [can no longer] defend itself, and it collapses, leaving its citizenry [you and I] stranded. I, for one, will not allow my government to disarm me for the rest of the world “MOLON LABE.” The U.S. government, for example, has not protected me against people with automatic weapons, by banning such weapons, any more than their (such persons) lack of immediate desire (their piqued desire) to do me harm; so that the government is still only be protecting me after-the-fact. “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates” – Tacitus. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington. http://quotes4all.net/ [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., pg 51-52]”
More happy-happy, fantasy-land stuff huh? This goofball has liberated himself from reality and is wallowing around in sunshine and rainbows, throwing daisies over his shoulder. How wonderful. Maybe we can all hold hands and imagine together…..
Even if you somehow magically made all of the guns and all of the knives and all of the blunt objects go poof and disappear, women (and older people, people with physical disabilities) would still be at a huge disadvantage in defending themselves from 200+ lb psycho men. But I guess they don’t really care about that anyway. They like the happy-happy fantasy-land stuff, not reality.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
According to Colt, the original saying was : ““Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” It has changed over time, and yours is the most often stated version.
Two countries that have a policy that allows weapons is the United States and Switzerland…….in Switzerland when you get married and start a family you get a weapon to protect your family..from the Gov’t…the Swiss are good shots and make fine weapons. I have a Sig P-210, the Legend.
The United States has always had weapons and we have fought off any incursion into this country.
we have the 2nd Amendment. This was thought out by the people who founded this country and as a result saved the world from many evil would be rulers……anti gun people are pacifists so let them move to where ever the mood suits them…….Leave my country alone.
Apparently he has never been punched. He probably should be. Repeatedly. Until he thinks having a gun is a good idea.
I took the fight to this guy. Thank god for Disqus.
Anywho, has any anti-2A person ever come up with a coherent plan to get guns out of American (and global) society? Hell, even in countries with blanket gun bans, they still turn up caches of ’em on a regular basis. I’d love to know their ideas for dealing with 300-400 million privately-owned firearms.
Didn’t Superman once collect all the world’s weapons and throw them into the sun?
I think that’s the most realistic technique for universal disarmament.
But then Lex Luthor and his punk-ass nephew created a being who nearly killed Superman. Not saying nukes would have taken this guy to town, but Superman disarmed the world, and almost died, leaving the world unprotected. Struggling for an analogy here, but one could play Superman IV into a “well, we better be armed” parable.
Nuclear Man is buried in the Sea of Tranquility to this day, waiting for an asteroid or something to set him loose…
-8 year old the ruester
300-400 million firearms?
“We’re going to need a bigger boat.”
It’s really not that complicated.
Don’t like the fact that guns will never go away as they are an integral part of American history and culture? Can’t stand that they are protected by the Constitution, which will likely never change? Think a completely gun free country that runs on civil disarmament is a gun violence free utopia?
Renounce your citizenship and move to the UK, Australia, or France… Oh wait… Forget France.
Am Sure ISIS endorses the Anti gun platform.
Am sure they are eventually coming for us.
If we wont shut down our borders, then there would be no hope of eliminating guns coming here
Let there be a weapon behind every blade of grass.
May the sheep continue to graze in ignorance of the world.
We should make a law that says breaking the law is against the law. That’s as sensible and possible as removing entirely any particular object from society.
In regards to number 6, I promise to relinquish my firearms after the government gives up theirs. My cold, dead hands and snowballs and all that will occur first.
Yes. “Simply” remove guns from society. Armed SWAT teams raiding millions of homes nationwide, destroying families and trampling civil rights is so simple isn’t it. Doesn’t make a difference to these urban mangina types. We’re “others” to them. They’ll be snuggled up watching netflix, sipping pumpkin spice mochachino in their onesies while the scoops come for all the evil gun owners.
I happen to love my onesie.
1. The shark is already dangerous enough without putting fricken laser beams on their heads.
2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space are unnecessary compared to things like guns .
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
I’m going to leave this one alone because carrying a sword is so much more romantic.
4. The fact we have already erred by allowing Communists into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.
5. Except for the Politicians and others who profit from insider trading, few would argue that living in a free market society is far preferable to living in one filled with corruption.
6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by Democrats. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making encroachment illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.
FIFY
Just keep believing that the government or governing body will always act in the interest of an unarmed peasantry. Government’s power is force and force alone.
I`m sure someone can come up with six reasons why free speech should be restricted or banned, or six reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are impediments to fighting crime and social ills.
Obama has already done all of that, it’s for our own good.
Well, the absolute impossibility of this:
Makes all other points moot.
Using magic fairy dust to make all the guns go away is not a valid position to take yet so many antis take it.
The lefties forget the spectacular failure that was prohibition which accomplished exactly the result they seek on guns. The possession, use and manufacture of an evil product was illegal all across the land. Yet somehow, everyone could still find, purchase and consume till their hearts content.
War on Drugs, exactly the same.
Prohibition of anything only enables the rise of the criminal class and opens up new avenues for illicit business. Simple supply and demand.
Considering the manufacture of a firearm is markedly more simplistic than distilling or brewing and can be done far more discretely, the odds guns will ever be disappeared is nil.
They can have my guns so long as they don’t send someone WITH guns to take them.
I could give them good reasons they won’t easily take mine… the very first six of them in ACP.
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
Really??? This is your reason?
Well if thats the case lets make heroin and meth illegal and ban those. Lets make prostitution illegal. Lets make crime its self a crime and im sure it will make it all go away. Wait…..we have and these ALL still exists and are worse than ever. The argument of eliminating them from society will somehow make all guns disappear is a clinically insane statement. Yea it will make them disappear for people who OBEY the law, but criminals? Nah, not so much. We have already made it illegal for a person with a felony to own or posses a firearm but somehow they seem to find ways to get them now dont they? These arguments are fucking ignorant and narrow minded. And once again lets remember, the whole point of the second amendment is to defend against hostile government or outside threats. Would be pretty hard for civilians to defend against this with rocks huh? In a perfect world everyone would be nice to everyone and there would be no crime. We could all love one another and everyone would just be dandy. Unfortunately that will never happen. Because of those with evil intentions. And good law abiding people would at least be given the right to defend if god forbid they ever had to. I HATE the gun control crowd. They are so lost and their views are so unrealistic and asinine. A school gets shot up and kids die what do they want to do…..take away guns from people who did nothing wrong. You cant punish everyone for isolated events. GOD DAMN this article makes me angry. It makes me also think what in the hell happened to the people in this country. How did they become so misinformed and easily influenced? because there are people out there that actually believe this shit in this article. Ted Nugent, although very loud and brash, said it best. Imagine if you were dropped on a planet with nothing. As a living breathing creature there are certain rights you have. And one of those is to be able to defend yourself against threat or predators. PERIOD. Take away guns and you take away good honest peoples ability to defend themselves against predators. Just like nature.
There’s a better answer: eliminate violence from society. If there were no violence then the level of inherent harm from guns would drop to that of cars and space shuttles (i.e., the inevitable rare tragic accidents stemming from things like not paying attention or being unlucky).
We can all do the Gandhi thing and be the change we want to see in the world by living non-violently. And we can do so while embracing guns for the sake of protecting ourselves and others from the predators who don’t want to be the change with us.
As noble as it may be to wish for an ideal world where nobody is ever shot, I’d rather live in a world where nobody is ever murdered, raped or tortured. Until such time as the rest of the world catches up with me I’d rather be the guy that might stop those things from happening instead of the guy who will have to watch helplessly while it happens. That doesn’t mean guns are the answer to all such problems, but they’re a damn fine option to have at my disposal.
This right here. Why is this not obvious?
I love how these people think they can wave a magic wand and remove all of the estimated 300 million guns in circulation from this country. Hell, even if they somehow managed to pass a law that completely banned private ownership of any and all firearms and could wave a magic wand to remove them all, how is that going to stop anything?
The fact of the matter is, as long as there is sizable demand for something, groups will move in to satisfy that demand, regardless of legality. Aside from the fact that you can easily make a Sten or an AK in your garage with parts that can be found at any hardware store, there is also the fact that we have an extremely porous (and LONG) southern border with a country awash in illegal hardware. Ban guns here, smugglers will bring them in from Mexico in droves.
We also have two large (and porous) coastal borders, and a large and porous northern border. America is probably the least smuggler-proof country in the world (certainly top ten), and these idiots think they can make and keep this country gun-free? And to the idiots who like to say the drug analogy isn’t accurate because marijuana can be easily grown by a single person in a single place (and who say this with the [incorrect] assumption that the same is NOT true for firearms), well, just look at heroine.
Poppies are grown in Afghanistan, then refined into heroine. Then, the drug is transported across oceans, before finally making its way into the US. Cocaine comes from Columbia, where it crosses several countries before being sold here in the US. The drug analogy is perfect, given the size of the smuggling chain and the sophistication of these global operations. Guns are already a key part of the drug trade, and most of the major players in the field already dabble in arms dealing as well.
So, should we cut off people’s fists? They are weapons as seen in the “knockout game” videos. What about larger and stronger people who are evil, should they be chemically weakened so they aren’t “weapons”? What about people who attempt to cross our borders illegally who don’t give a hoot about gun laws? Since we have no weapons, how do we keep them out with their weapons?
A completely idiotic wish/demand. I’m gunned up to the teeth. I bet I’ll never have to use any of my weapons against another. I hope I don’t. If though my life or the lives of my family are threatened and I and my guns are near, I’ll use them to our benefit and to the perpetrator’s detriment. And I’m depending on the fact that my guns will be far superior to their weapons. Yes, I plan to bring guns to a fist fight, a knife fight or even a gun fight.
But, the real reason we have guns isn’t because of street thugs. It’s government thugs we have to worry about. We need to protect ourselves from central governments who are always on the move to take away our God given freedoms. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are freedoms our founders knew would always be under threat. How do we ensure politicians don’t threaten them? Vote? Votes can be bought (the democrats and republicans give out our money to buy themselves votes from people who are happily enslaved in exchange for some “candy”.) So, it’s not so easy to change things at the ballot box. And as we’ve seen with the latest administration, they think NOTHING of trampling on the constitution and taking powers not granted to them. And the congress doesn’t even fight it. They’re in on the game too. What to do? Be ready to take back freedoms by force of that becomes necessary. Which is why the people must be well armed. So that anyone attempting to take away those things that are rightfully ours will think twice and back off. And if we are all so well armed, my guess is the politicians will never go too far.
“So, should we cut off people’s fists?”
Won’t work, sorry.
Cutting off of fists is out, the knifes and saws were banned before the ‘Common Sense Fist Control Safety Act’ was passed…
Remember?
1. The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.
You need a gun to protect you from the other bad folk who may be physically stronger. Should a slender person simply allow themselves to be beaten to death?
2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.
Nice try, but the number of accidental deaths from firearms isn’t near as prevalent as other forms of accidental deaths.
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
Guns are also useful at defending against people wielding axes, bats, knives, chainsaws, spears, fists, and you know… the firearms that people made in a machine shop in a few minutes.
4. The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.
Simple answer: It was not a mistake. It is also a false premise that the way to “fix” it is to remove guns. at least you’re honest about your goal though.
5. Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.
Nobody likes gun violence. Not the NRA, not the gun manufacturers. The only ones who revel in gun violence are the people who wish to take our god given rights away.
6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.
And another simple answer: Your rights end where mine begin. There is no constant threat because of guns. There is a constant threat of bad people in this world, but history has shown that even without guns there will be bad people. Before man even left caves other men were smashing heads in with rocks. Sounds like a good reason to have protection on me. I’m not called paranoid because I have a fire extinguisher in my truck. In fact maybe we should remove fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems from schools since there’s not been a kid killed by fire… Oh right… safety.. Same principle.
This was written by an elementary school child trying to sound more educated, right? Grammar is terrible, and the use of unnecessary jargon sounding works is risible
[2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.]
Grammatically, he just said that deaths and woundings caused by guns are unnecessary, compared to driving a car.
What the hell is he actually trying to say? I would say that the deaths that result from car accidents are “unnecessary” compared to things like using a gun. It is just gibberish as written
I think he meant “Even though both result in injury and death, the use of guns are unnecessary compared to actions like driving a car.”
[3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.]
Well when you have a concrete plan to do that, that involves absolutely every gun being removed, then we can talk. Untilthen glad you recognize my “need” is “highly justifiable” in the real world.
[ 4. The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.]
“allowing” not “allowed,” “does not mean” or “does not entail” rather than “does not rationally translate” (look at how dumb I am kind of abuse of words)
Anyhow, I agree. We should correct mistakes, no matter how hard. I noticed a typo in my college thesis the other day, and the official version is locked up in a storage room in the library. So I am going to grab my red pen and drive to my alma mater (well I will run out of gas and money, so drive half way and walk the rest), break in and correct that thesis!
No sense of proportion in his rant here, even assuming he knew a way to eliminate all guns. Such would have to be pretty draconian.
[5. Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.]
So let me get this dumbarse straight? The NRA and those that “profit from guns” would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence? And few others would. So most people, and I am just saying that our dumbnut author said, prefer the latter, namely gun violence, over the former?
I think he meant to say the opposite of what he just said. And leaving aside the fallacy of majority appeal, it is also a false dichotomy. I prefer guns, not violence.
[ 6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.]
I would love to see him actually argue this. He just asserted that the fundamental role of government is to a) protect individual rights and b) do this by making guns illegal.
And where would national defense come in there? Some kind of accidental role, or would he mean by national defense an army with which to seize the guns? After all, the raison d’être for government is to ban guns. That is what this asinine morass just said.
Leave aside the controversial, but pretty American view that government’s role is to protect individual rights, he has to establish that “security of mind” is such a right. And being a ius exigendi, he will have a very hard time. Broad, “inalienable rights” are generally ius agendi not ius exigendi. Or put another way, I have the right to act a certain way and that is easily defined, but an act of demanding from others (a right to do that is called ius exigendi) is usually treated very narrowly (a right to a jury is a ius exigendi, the government must provide one)
Since peace of mind is the object here, I demand that the government give me $2 million dollars. With that I can pay off my student loans, those of my girlfriend, buy a modest house, pay my parents medical debt and have a rain day fund. I need this to have peace of mind. Since my right to have a peace of mind is inalienable, you must give me this. I demand it.
Actually, I like this idea. Please, everyone, I have a right to peace of mind. Therefore, you guys must financially secure me. Also, I can sin and fear not, since any worry about repercussions, guilt goes against peace of mind.
Guys like this are “broadcast trolls” who crave attention. The best thing we can do is completely ignore them. There are real threats out there to TRTKABA, but this idiot isn’t one of them. I think things are on the upswing for TRTKABA, the post-Heller cases and some good things happening in the states. We have lost a battle or two, most notably I-5-whatever in WA.
The worst I can see happening is mag limits, assault rifle restrictions like the last “ban,” which really wasn’t a ban, more background checks, etc. I also think you could see some spot confiscation in emergency areas like after Katrina, especially in blue states. Don’t get me wrong, all those would be bad, if they succeeded, but they are far from a slam dunk.
But this nuts idea of a gun free USA? Never gonna happen. First off, there is no gun free ANYWHERE in this world. Second, Even most liberals in this country wouldn’t support a total ban. Third, as some have pointed out, the logistics of confiscation would be off the charts. I think some states would outright refuse to cooperate with the feds. They couldn’t supercede a federal law, but they can refuse to commit resources to the effort, which would have the same effect. Let’s ignore this bozo. He has already had more attention than he deserves.
Well, I saw six ill-informed opinions that have no resemblance to reality, but not a single “very good reason” in the whole thing…
I’m afraid I just don’t have the vocabulary to fully express just how freaking stupid this guy’s statements are. They are so off base and showing no connection either reality or any statistical fact that they have given me another brain tumor.
“The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.”
A foolish thought, that we as “animals” might aspire to a higher morality. Which is it, pal? Are we animals, or are we infinitely more complex moral beings?
Oh, and the rest of his points are worthless, too.
#1 & #2: Makes sense. Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 Hi jackers proved #1 to be correct.
#3: This is impossible. As long as their is evil in the hearts of men, then a 115 lbs single mother of two will need a firearm to defend herself and her children against a 275lbs man that intends to do her harm.
#4: We didn’t error by allowing guns into our society. They actually established our society and gave us the freedoms we have today.
#5: Sounds reasonable. If the anti-gunners can wave their magic wand and make all guns disappear & turn all evil men into good people with nothing but live and joy in their hearts, then this would be possible.
#6: They are correct. EVERY American has the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But to assume that is the responsibility of our government to be the only one to ensure those Rights by letting them be the only ones with firearms, is an easy way for that government to take our safety and security away… or let us have safety & security on THEIR terms, and the the citizen’s.
Quick, spread the fairy dust that magically removes all guns from society and reverts human evolution to a point where we are unable to create them.
These people really are devoid of anything resembling a brain cell, aren’t they?
I am speechless at the 6 points. We MUST do a better job in communicating the fallacy of this line of thinking. Its breathtaking the level of group think here on the part of liberals. They are not all this stupid. Yikes!
They are not stupid Jim. Just delusional and they have bought into the propaganda of the anti-gun folks for whatever reason. When you are fighting for such a “great cause” you tend to ignore any argument that does not agree with your way of thinking. No sense arguing with them as their minds will not change until their home is broken into or a loved one harmed or killed while they wait for the police to get there. Even then, if the intruder had a gun they will likely cite that gun as the cause of the disaster, not the one that pulled the trigger. Far left liberals don’t like to blame criminals for anything. It’s always someone else’s fault. Poor upbringing, bad neighborhood, not enough opportunities and so on. No responsibility for the bad guys. Coddle them in prison for a bit and send them back out into the world.
I have $87 in my pocket that I would like to donate to the fund to help buy these wackos their NECESSARY one-way Shuttle ticket into space. Good grief.
1. Yes, humans can be dangerous, even without a gun. That’s why I might need one to defend myself from a Neanderthal with a club, chain, brick or whatever they can grab. They don’t need a gun to hurt people but people may need a gun to defend themselves.
2. The deaths from these mistakes are minuscule compared to other causes of death. Riding a shuttle into space, really? Why is this thrown into this argument ? Irrational IMO.
3. ALL guns will never be removed from society. And even if they were the killing would not stop. And the weaker would succumb to those with more power or with the illegal guns.
4. Few would argue with an irrational statement like this? First of all, our society is not “filled” with gun violence unless you live in an inner city with gang activity. In which case the gun holders typically break the law and own guns even if they are forbidden to do so. My city has very little to NO gun violence and we have many legal gun owners here. Lastly, a gun free society is a fantasy of the far left. Even in countries where guns are effectively banned there is violence with and without guns being used. This imaginary Utopia does not exist anywhere in the world that I am aware of.
5. It is NOT the government’s role or it’s responsibility to make guns illegal. In fact, according to the Second Amendment their role is exactly the opposite. Where did this sanctimonious A-hole come up with a statement like this. Out of thin air? What a pompous ass the author of this article is.
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
So you would do this how? By trying to take them from law abiding citizens first! Well to that i say molon labe.
Error 404: Logic not found.
“The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.”
Tell ya what, skippy… first, get rid of all the nuclear weapons. Everyone says they want to get rid of them, there’s a TINY amount compared to the guns in the world, so you should have no trouble doing it. Then we’ll talk about my revolver, mmmkay?
It’s turning into a rumble on the comments section over there. I have to go eat dinner. Guys, I need someone to keep pounding away at this nitwit.
Who wrote those six reasons? Was it Hitler, Moa, Stalin, Castro…????
I can stop looking now. I’m printing that image and pasting it into my unillustrated dictionary next to the definition of Progress hipster douche nozzle.
Ray
Disarmists and their bullet points to a Gun free society often remind me of the Underpants Gnome’s business plan..
1) Demand laws banning guns.
2) ?
3) Utopia!
I don’t waste my time debating trolls or progtards on websites like CBS, (insert also NYT, WAPO, PuffHos, Vox, CNN, MSNBC or the many lower levels in the long compromised left-wing ecosystem of propaganda formerly known as the “News”.
A silly little editor-un-checked propaganda press releases from places like “Protect Minnesota” when the ‘reporter’ either phoned it in, without the slightest bit of background checking, or worse, is enabling the progressive propaganda machine by “trading it up the chain”, for clicks and ad revenue, and search optimization/distortion of truth, and collusion in the left echo chamber by bouncing it back and forth as the same stale pre-positioned story.
If you are unfamiliar with that term, read “Trust Me, I’m Lying”, to understand how these bits of propaganda are posted by some Journolista at a low level blog, or handed out as a press release, that is then phoned in as news, to be elevated to more credibility under the banner of a national media name, like CBS. Its most often done by the local affiliate that is desperate for content, and/or willing to play along for political reasons.
So, lets dig a bit – looking for more info on Progress MN, we see that the about link goes to a bad link on a server formely hosted by a Soros fronted progressive group, supported by MoveOn.org.
So much for this being a local non-biased “citizen group” simply interested in gun safety. “For the Children”.
Looking a bit deeper, google searching finds numerous references to Progress Minnesota as a gun control organization. My guess is if you were to dig deeper you would find no Form 990, required for non-profits, but not available until nearly two years after founding. This is how people like Bloomberg morph their astro-turf groups from one form to another to hide where the money is coming from.
You could dig deeper and look at the players, the people on the Board, the key execs, or just google some of the names- and most likely find the same set of reliable idiots that pose as citizens while working as community organizers from whatever radical progtard organization that have been discredited in past- ACORN, SIEU, OWS, OFA – the same failed efforts that were once generated by indymedia, Democratic Underground, and coordinated for whatever the meme of the day was- now, like Ferguson, or ClimateChange, or War On Wimmen- its the same pathetic group of wannabe Change.org types.
Sort of changes the nature of your news, oops I mean progtard puff piece altogether, there, doesn’t it “Suzie Airhead Reporter At Best”at CBS local in MN.
Just like there is no sense wasting time on anonymous nitwits and trolls in these sites, there is no sense getting irate at CBS because they are only following the lead of management at the top.
Again, if you haven’t already, read “Stonewalled” by Sharyl Atkisson, a multiple national award winning investigative reporter on scandals and stories on both the left and right, and the change in CBS as it began to conform to Media Matters and White House pressure, to suppress reporting critical of the WH, or in particular on Fast and Furious.
CBS is no more a news outlet than Mother Jones, or Raw Story- its just a Dead Man Walking, trading on its fading brand, and credibility, most recently exploded by the Brian Williams debacle.
Who has the popcorn?
So he wants to go back to a might makes right society? A society without the great equalizer belongs to the strongest.
I think that they do want exactly that. IMHO, since they know that ultimately the mightiest will be government, they believe that they can control the beast with social engineering. It’s Soviet style thinking. It leads to mass murders but they apparently think somehow things will be different this time around.
The best argument against these type of people would be to give them everything they want and make them live with it for awhile. Let them build a society ‘without guns’ somewhere out of the way- just them. Let them keep it open to whomever wants to come across the borders (so much for ‘without guns,’ right?). Let them police themselves- don’t let them hire other men to guard them! They can wear the pajama guy uniform and carry a whistle. Let them set economic policy and determine state assistance so that no one needs to work unless they want to do so.
See what happens. I suspect they wouldn’t last as long as the biodome before they suddenly decide that maybe they need someone to prop up the system they thought up while drinking coffee and typing at Starbucks.
We do that to a small degree already with the modern US slave states. If they were individual nations, they’d be down in flames by now. The stability of other states prop them up, IMHO. The interesting thing about more free US states; the rest of the country could disappear for a while and they would probably be just fine.
It’s called “Mob Rule”.
http://www.amazon.com/Demonic-How-Liberal-Endangering-America/dp/0307353486/ref=pd_ybh_1
I know that a bunch of others have already given their thoughts on this, but I thought that I would do the same.
“1. The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.”
So, are you saying that we should disarm the police and the military too? If not, why not? Why not also extend this towards other weapons? You may not know this, but plenty of people have been killed (and this continues today) without the use of firearms.
“2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.”
Again, would you use this as a justification for disarming the police and disbanding the military? In any case, you failed to cite any sources demonstrating that the costs of gun rights outweigh the benefits. And yes, the burden of evidence is on YOU. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on more than one occasion that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and, even if it didn’t, there’s still the fact that we have empirical evidence of the dangers of excessive government control (I would argue against ANY government control, but I digress). So, if the evidence for your side does not exist, then we should err on the side of liberty, as attorney Eugene Volokh argues.
“3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.”
Again, why not extend this to other types weapons? Guns exist (especially in our society) specifically because of the necessity of having a more reliable method of defense with a better learning curve. Even if you could guarantee that stronger gun control policies could successfully eliminate firearms from society (which highly improbable), there’s still the question of how should people defend themselves against attackers?
“4. The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.”
The only error in regards to guns is trying to restrict them. It most likely is too late for your side to get rid of guns from society in the near future. In any case, even if such a campaign would be successful, it would be highly unwise to do so. One other large error that we have made in regards to the murder rate is the War on Drugs. We would likely significantly reduce the murder rate in this country if we ended the War on Drugs.
“5. Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.”
I think you mis-worded that. You just said that not many people would prefer living in a gun-free society over living in one with gun violence. With your line of thought, it should be the other way around. In any case, I’d like to start by saying drop the appeal to motives. It doesn’t count as evidence. In addition to that, it’s foolish to believe that violence (including gun violence) would disappear if we had a gun-free society. Even if you somehow managed to eliminate all guns from criminals and civilians, there’s still the question that I stated above about self-defense without firearms.
“6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.”
Considering the fact that the murder rate has gone down over the last 20 years (and contrary to what Mother Jones says, mass shootings are not on the rise), you’re being irrational if you live under constant fear of guns, unless you live in a particularly dangerous part of the country. And it is not the responsibility of the government to protect us by infringing on our rights (rights that, as I said before, are recognized by the Supreme Court).
Yes as member of the NRA I do admit that if there were no guns then there would be less Gun Violence in the world. But if we look at the first 9000 years of human history before the gun we still see plenty of violence and only a fool would believe that All Violence will disappear with the gun. When I lived in Israel I saw mass murders committed without the aid of guns when men and children strapped on bombs and walked into public places. Where there is a will there is a way and the only way you can stop the violence is to change the harts and minds of people. If you can do that my friend then I will happily beat my swords into plow blades.
CORRECTION: Six proven reasons why America should not to become a “gun-free” society.
1. Without armed self-defense, we inevitably return to a State of Nature wherein if you’re not already born bigger and stronger than rest, you’re only prey for the rest of your natural – and you will get got. Period.
2. Far and away more “inevitable mistakes” are made in cars and on operating tables than are made by people that have guns. You can go ahead and shit-can the cue-card rhetoric bullshit and dump the False Comparison fallacies already before you dig yourself any deeper into that philosophical cesspit of yours. Thanks.
3. Not only is the need to defend yourself with a weapon not even extinguishable to begin with, you can’t remove all guns from society, either, as much as you like to PRETEND that it’s even remotely possible. Which it’s not, never was, and shall never be. Remember that whole State of Nature thing? Plus, once something is invented, there’s no going back. End of discussion.
4. The fact that you THINK it’s an error to safe-guard the public’s right to defend themselves really translates into literally nothing more than your own demonstrably willful pig ignorance of good ole’ human nature, and the apparent and willfully erroneous companion belief that it can be legislated away or made “fairer” or “safer”. The only mistake that’s been made here is to publish anything you have to say in any medium, much less for your audience to actually consume it.
5. Except those that want to create more victims to stay relevant, few would argue that living in a society where you have not the means to repel an attacker is preferable to living in a (mostly) free one where we at least have the choice to tool up – even if we ultimately choose not to. After all, personal choice is supposed to be the sole bastion of left-thinking, self-anointed, so-called “Progressives”, right? … Yeah, I didn’t think so, either, ’cause it just ain’t true.
6. Nobody has the imagined “right” to peace of mind or to be made any guarantee of their personal safety by the government, nor is it even remotely a necessary component of the free exercise of our actual rights. Guns don’t pose a threat and neither do you even have the physical capacity within you to articulate precisely why they would; they’re an inanimate object that don’t possess Free Will or thoughts and emotions of their own, and as such cannot and do not disable, enable, compel, empower, or coerce anyone into or out of thinking, saying, or doing anything at any time, in any place, or under any circumstance to, at, or around anyone – even as much as you clearly like to PRETEND that they do. The government doesn’t have a legal or moral responsibility to protect us, and nothing and no one has ever been able to prove that banning guns would even indirectly achieve this aim – or to even totally remove guns from society for that matter.
Your turn. 😉
Back in 2000, while assigned to the gun-free paradise known as Fiji, I read a police report about a gang who robbed and raped an entire village using machetes and a single barrel 20ga shotgun. Surprisingly, some of the victims wrote they were not afraid to confront the machete wielding thugs, but were afraid of the one guy holding the shotgun (probably loaded with birdshot) watching over the whole event.
There is no such thing as a gun-free world anymore. There never will be again. Stop wishing for it and try solving problems that are actually solvable. Until then, defend yourself as best you can with the tools we have availalbe. Anything less is called being a victim.
Yay! Pixie dust and unicorn farts!
3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
This is a straw man. While some may make this claim, most people who justify gun ownership with self-defense would say, “we have a need to have a gun to defend against others.” Period. From what I’ve read of crime history, criminals have a tendency to target people weaker than themselves (excepting when a criminal has a specific grudge against a person, and picks the target that way). So, assuming that a criminal who attacks me will be stronger than me, not to mention will likely try to take me by surprise, I will ALWAYS BE AT A DISADVANTAGE. With a firearm, this disadvantage is far less, because now I can defend myself using the chemical energy stored in the powder, rather than having to rely on my own physical strength.
For those of you who don’t want to sift through such a long-winded rant, allow me to sum up thusly: guns are the great equalizer.
You are so right. “Guns are the great equalizer.” Period, end of story.
BUT, hmmmm……. is it the end of the story? There is nothing more true than your statement and in fact, this is what my dad (x-marine cant. Iwo) taught me from a very young age. Those exact words. Love it. Love truth and reason.
HOWEVER, it is precisely why progressives and liberal elites don’t like guns and people that have them. They don’t like being “equal.” They truly believe in their heart of hearts that we are NOT equal. They look at gun owners as knuckle-dragging un-sophisticates that, as you many remember from our great leader, “cling to our guns and religion.” Wow! I’ll never forget that one.
OK, back to the point. Progressive elites believe they are smarter than the rest and the less neurologically endowed and therefore, we should just do what they are told and not have the ability to challenge their tyranny. But of course, it is for our own good and the good of the state. Oops. Its that “state” thing we all love or fear. That is what separates us from progressives. So where does history fall on that one I ask to those who are far more sophisticated than us?
Stalin, according to a quote I fished from a Google search apparently once said, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” This is interesting in that he accurately intertwines freedom of thought, speech and right to have guns. He got it right and thank God our founders and the culture that built this country got it as well. Lots of guns in the hands of normal ordinary citizens and what do we have …… ta da! No Stalins. Not here anyway.
So here is a message to progressive liberal elites who clearly have far more intelligence than us. Be careful what you wish for. And how is it possible that you can ignore the overwhelming history lesson regarding the emergence of tyranny over and over in the 20th century at a cost of 100s of millions of lives. This totally perplexes me. But I’m a knuckle dragger. But what if all those people who died at the end of a rifle (directly and indirectly) had military grade guns and were trained to use them? How many would be alive today? Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, African, etc.?
Please someone of greater mental capacity, help me out here.
And two why it “shouldn’t”…
1 – “Should” denys the art of the possible. I should live forever, riding my FTL unicorn to infinity and beyond. So “should” you. Also, like Lake Wobegone, all the children should be above average.
2 – Implementing each of the 6 brenefits – that’s what they are, presumed benefits of making America a gun free society – without making each one, in particular, worse. Not other consequences. These exact same consequences become worse.
2.1 “The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.” Exactly so. Apparently we should become a gun free zone to allow *more* violence from the violence prone who might otherwise be stopped by reluctant self-protection. I’m OK with the people who don’t beat women, children, older folks, or anyone else they can, because they can, having a way to stop the violence prone folks who happen to be bigger, stronger, or faster.
2.2 “Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.” Well, I’ll be here in my tub, where it’s safe, where more accidents happen than elsewhere it turns out. Doing something may go sideways. Doing nothing is also a choice, and will kill you faster, and it turns out inevitably.
Couches aren’t “necessary.” I can’t wait to be required to engage in the optimum channel-surfing exercise program, because sitting watching the tube will in fact kill you … unnecessary.
2.3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.
Yep. As easy as removing drugs, porn, prostitution, or boing a bit more old-school murder. Remove such guns as you can remove, and you may have *more* violence done via gun. However, it’ll be way more skewed, toward folks who disregard all norms, or compelled to do violence despite it being more difficult.
2.4 “The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.”
Well, I think we should correct a number of similar mistakes. Vaccination & sanitation and manged farming leading to increased population. Cars, because we should all be bound to the villiage where we were born. Indoor plumbing.
I do wonder, what would it take to “correct” this “error?” Door to door searches on “suspicion” in locked down neighborhoods never goes sideways. It happened in freaking Canada. Or has nobody watched the street protests in the last year?
2.5 “Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.”
Wow. “Few would argue?” How do you shut up the tens of millions, at least, of gun owners in the US? To make “few would argue” you’d have to shut up people who have voted with their time, money and yes by assuming personal responsibility. I think it’ll take more than a twitter storm to shut them up, so how you gonna do that. Apparently, the 10’s of millions of US households that own guns (AIR), the 100 million+ gun owners (again AIR), of the about 300 million guns in citizen hands, don’t argue in their own interest.
2. 6. “Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights…”
Well, you get rid of the constant threat of violent people using guns, you’re left with the constant threat of violence, still. I loose peace of mind when bad actors have lower risks. Also when I’m at risk, or people I care about.
*** This last is the crux. Guns aren’t the issue. The presence of guns in individuals’ hands punctures the denial some folks cling to. Thing is, in the real world, reality gets the only vote that matters. Denial will get you killed. (They don’t like that either.)
This guy seems uncomfortable with living life – the consequences, the uncertainty and the responsibility. Guns are a totem of the world not as he wishes it was.
– You are at risk from the threat of violence, because some people are like that. (See point #1.)
– How you choose to take care of that influences what may happen to you.
– To act in the world, for example to protect yourself and yours, is to wield a terrible power. (You can kill someone by knocking them down. You can knock someone down simply by standing up if they’ve grabbed you.
Cool Bong!!!!!
I have one very good reason America should become a six gun society.
Does no one else think that guitar/banjo he’s holding is AWESOME?
Well I can appreciate his brevity. At least he kept it short and simple so debunking his points is that much easier and more effective.
“1. The human animal is already dangerous enough without putting a gun in his or her hand.”
The human animal is so dangerous, especially in groups, that this is why weapons for purposes other than hunting were conceived. Nothing can hold back an angry mob like a few firearms.
“2. Everyone inevitably makes mistakes and the resultant deaths and wounding caused by guns are unnecessary compared to things like driving a car or riding the Shuttle into space.”
This barely even makes sense. Carrying a firearm is not as complex as driving or operating a space craft. Apart from hitting fine targets at long range, it is fairly simple and accessible to anyone and it helps you learn to do math in your head.
“3. The highly justifiable need to have a gun to defend against others with guns is easily extinguished by simply removing all guns from society.”
I don’t have a gun to protect myself from other people with guns. I have a gun to protect myself from people with knives, blunt instruments and bigger muscles than me. If they have a gun too, then the odds are probably even but I’m taking the best odds I can get. Also, I am disabled and cannot walk. I can still hit someone pretty hard, but I would prefer to shoot someone if they try to take something from me or hurt me.
“4. The fact we have already erred by allowed guns into our societies does not rationally translate into a conclusion that it’s too late to correct that error. No matter how hard it is to correct a mistake, if we know how to correct it we should do so.”
Who erred? Americans who live free or Europeans that live in fear of immigrant mobs that fight dirty and take advantage of your limp wristed ideals? Walking down the street at night, I would be more worried in London than in the USA. Mass shooting hysteria has more to do with the culture of our public school system than access to weapons. American public schools breed alienation, hatred and homicidal tendencies. I know, I went to one, and I did not come out unscathed.
“5. Except for the NRA and others who profit from guns, few would argue that living in a gun-free society is far preferable to living in one filled with gun violence.”
I’ve never profited from guns monetarily. They are a huge drain on my expenses and time. Taking guns out of the equation doesn’t take violence out of the equation. Imagine a world where a hardened street thug knew he would almost never have to face an armed victim? Firearms do provide an element of deterrence, getting shot will put you in the hospital for months even if you live. Nobody wants that and that is why crime is actually lower than ever.
“6. Everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the peace of mind that is a necessary component of those rights that has been taken from us by the constant threat posed by guns. It is the fundamental role and responsibility of government to protect our rights by making guns illegal and the public square safer for us and our children.”
The only suburban white boys I know who have died to a firearm were kids who thought they could deal drugs on some gang’s turf. When I was a kid a friend of mine found a lady in the woods who shot herself. I know a couple folks who shot themselves. This isn’t “about the children” and that is just misleading. The only reason kids get shot is because they were not sufficiently protected from the enemy within, the mentally ill fellow student or authority figure.
If liberal shrinks took their jobs seriously, they might stop handing out mind bending drugs like candy and realize that individuals with certain tendencies need to be segregated, analyzed and reconditioned for their own good the good of their peers. If they did this, a lot of good people might stop blowing their brains out as well.
What a bizarre libtard commie pig. This is an excellent way to make our nation sniff Zyclon-B. A (brave new) world without guns?
Comments are closed.