Monday, May 07, 2007

Choose the impliment of your destruction

So, you'd like to argue with me about guns. Fair enough. Though I ask that you not take offense to my assumption that you are quite *ahem* outgunned. I hope, however, that you will accept my offer of selecting the argument you wish me to use to unhinge yours, that you may choose ground with which you are familiar. This way, you will harbor no ill-will when you are trounced.

Sir, choose my weapon!

Constitutional wording
Somehow references to "the people" in the first amendment refer to the people. But references to "the people" in the second refer to the states? Yeah. No. And you might want to look up older definitions of the word "regulated." Seems it can also mean armed and ready, or properly managed. The constitution was meant to be read, not interpreted. Hand the amendment to a 5 year old and ask him what it means.

Constitutional intent
Those who penned the 2nd amendment did not just toss it in there for the hell of it. Many of our founding framers spoke very specifically to the necessity and reason behind the second amendment, some felt it to be the most important amendment. They had just finished fighting an oppressive government with guns they refused to give up when the British came to confiscate them. They knew that the evolution of any government ends in oppression, and knew that guns in the hands of citizens would be a constant reminder that oppression would be met with force.

So, you think the 2nd amendment only refers to mussel loaders which only allow a few shots a minute? We find the intent of the 2nd amendment to allow the people to remain as armed as their government. When the military picks up muskets, the people will too.

How exactly does the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917. If the militia is manned by citizens, and a tool of the state, why do they operate on federal land with federally owned weapons, vehicles, and buildings and punish trespassers under federal law? There must be a separation of powers that simply doesn't exist in the national guard.

Ever wonder why gun control advocates point to "gun crime" specifically to show the success of their legislation? Because regular crime goes up when gun control goes up. It's a dirty little secret that is well kept. Even the slightest effort in research brings up countless instances of increased availability of guns decreasing crime.

The police are not legally required to protect you or come when you call. The only time you'll get an immediate response is when you are in immediate danger, and then you still have to wait for their 5-10 minute "quick" response time. You wouldn't want to spend 30 seconds in the same room as a violent intruder with a knife, why would you choose to spend 5-10 minutes? A gun in the hand is worth 100 armed, trained police officers three blocks away. As for the police controlling some hidden mastery of guns, countless (and I do mean countless) instances prove the fallibility of the police. They are not perfect, and are not the perfect solution.

In the world there are countless instances of disarmed populations being oppressed, subjugated, and genocided. We even find flickers of armed resistances causing serious trouble to better armed and better trained oppressors. I have no shortages of arguments here, and always wrap up with the old favorite: "Those who don't learn from history..."

Ease of use
Guns make it easy to kill which is good if you're an underpowered or outnumbered woman on a dark street at night. Should the old and frail not be allowed to protect themselves when they are clearly vulnerable to attacks? Guns equalize. They have the power to equalize a regular citizen with a hardened criminal. I don't suppose you'd be against putting a 90 pound woman on equal footing with a 200 pound rapist?

Sporting Purposes
Strangely the constitution speaks nothing of the recreational shooting of living creatures. Must you make sport of shooting attackers if your life is threatened, or refuse to use the gun in an "unsporting" fashion?

And finally, my least favorite, though likely most effective argument;
There are about 1.5 million active and reserve duty members of the armed forces (I rounded up). There are 85 million gun owners in America, with 250 million guns. If a conservative estimate of JUST 1% of gun owners are the "cold dead hands" types, they will outnumber the military over 5 to 1. That's before considering that not all members of the military are combat trained, and that only a small percentage of those are suited for urban fighting. One more thing; those "cold dead hands" types are very likely more skilled and more prepared than all but the best shooters in the military. Even if they just stand and fight instead of resorting to guerrilla tactics, their kill ratio will NOT be 1:1. They will likely be in the tens, and may approach the hundreds if they take up an insurgency-style guerrilla role. Most of these types will likely be very smart, very skilled, very well-armed, and very willing to do what they know to be their patriotic duty in taking up arms against a tyrannical government, or die trying.

It ain't pretty, and I don't like talking about it because it scares people, but it's the truth.
Confiscation, logistically, can't work.

So... Choose your fighting ground...


Fletch said...

Not sure how I managed to turn off comments on this, but comments are now officialy OPEN!

defiant_infidel said...

Your usual exceptional work. I can't imagine that the vast parade of liberal readers who browse your site haven't offered up their own concrete arguments with your well established facts... Must be because the comments were turned off. HA!

Get ready for the flood of gibberish!

Anonymous said...

The other approach on the anachronism point is that if the right to keep and bear arms applies only to flintlock black powder arms (including a few rare breechloaders such as the Ferguson) then freedom of the press applies only to handset type.