Let me start by telling you, I’ve been around guns my entire life. Before I ever touched one, my father did a good job if engraining certain beliefs about guns into my head. Aside from the obvious and glaring safety basics, one of the first things I learned about guns is that they are a tool, no different from any other tool. Improperly used or handled, they can be dangerous or deadly to both the operator as well as those around him. One argument I hear frequently is that guns are not like other tools, because they are more deadly, to which I can only respond, a steak knife through the eye, a circular saw through the femoral artery or a climbing rope wound around the neck all are just as deadly as a 9mm to the chest, arguably, all of the above could even be more deadly, depending on circumstances.
That the primary use of a gun is to destroy life is without question. I won’t argue the point, like some pro-gun folks will, that a guns primary use as a line of defense is deterrence. Hogwash. I’ve got nothing to hide, and no reason to lie or deceive. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold, with the primary purpose being to cause death. Sure, there are LOTS of folks who use them strictly for pleasure, a day at the range, or even a day shooting bottles in the woods. There are also many people who use them for competitions, 3 gun, USPSA, NRA long rifle, there are numerous tournaments and competitions for firearms. But these are secondary. The primary and original purpose was and is, to cause death, and to avoid that and dance around it, only hurts the pro-gun movement, and does nothing to further it.
There are so many reasons to be anti gun control, that it’s difficult to know exactly where to begin, so I’ve decided to start with history. Since the dawn of time, since groups of cavemen went to war by throwing rocks at one another, man has had three primary uses for any weapon he has developed. First, to provide food. Second, to defend against attackers. Third, to be the attacker, and take that which other people have claimed for themselves. And almost as long as these tenets have been in place, those in power have sought to disarm those they rule over in order to provide security for their rule. Even before firearms, there are numerous examples or a tyrannical ruling body seeking to disarm, or keep unarmed, a populace that was unhappy with their rule. This is the reason that so many weapons we see today in the Asian derived martial arts are transformed versions of what were once farming implements.
In more modern times, we have examples like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot to look at. I’m not going to be your history teacher, if you want specifics, you should look each of them up and how they relate to gun control. But one thing they had in common is that all of them used one form or another of gun control to disarm a civilian populace in order to solidify their reign. Lenin said “one man with a gun can control 100 without a gun” and it’s true. And so, the one surefire, foolproof way to prevent our government from sliding into a more tyrannical rule is to remain an armed and aware populace. Currently the US is most well-armed civilian population on the planet. This isn’t even close. There is no real “second place” in a comparison of this sort and the US would be in first second and third if there was. We have guns, lots of them, and the government knows it, and every other government knows it as well. If it weren’t for the fact that our civilian population has more small arms than our military, I’m convinced that “taxation without representation” would be far more rampant than it already is (and that’s saying a lot…)
Our forefathers were no fools. There is a reason they wrote the second amendment to include the right to bear arms. Corrupt men unopposed only become more corrupt. An armed population provides a counterpoint that is undeniable and always present.
As much as I hate to take sides on the liberals vs conservatives debate (one is as evil as the other if you ask me) The liberals want to tell you what to do. It is their belief that they, and only they, should decide what is best for you, your kids, and the general populace. They want to take what you have, and give it to the less fortunate. They want to protect you from yourself and from your neighbors. They want to put you in a safe little bubble over which they have total control so that you can lead a full and rich life exactly as they define it. The one thing stopping them is guns. So, while they whittle away at all your other rights a little at a time. While they try to tell you what you can and can not hear on the radio or what is or is not acceptable for you to display on your lawn, they are always, and always have been, trying to take your guns away. Realistically, such an undertaking is massive. Insane. Though hard to determine positively, it is widely accepted that there are roughly 9 guns for every 10 people in the US, man woman and child. That’s over 300 million LEGAL guns in this country. Taking them all away is a ridiculous undertaking to even attempt, so don’t worry, the US government isn’t going to show up at your house looking to take away your legally owned guns any time soon, to think they will is silliness, the logistics are just too staggering to understand. But, they can do their best to convince people that don’t have one, not to buy one. They can get a handful to give the one they have up or to turn it in to a police department for destruction. They can create legislation that makes you hop skip and jump through so many hoops to get one, that only the most determined would ever buy one. They can create tarrifs and regulations that make it so expensive to produce or import them, that the cost makes it prohibitive for most people. And by doing these things, they can, slowly, whittle away at the number of armed citizens in the US. You don’t have to disarm an entire populace to control it, just enough of them to be an insignificant threat. So remember that when the debate comes up, and don’t let your congressman or senator pass any laws that inhibit your ability to become or remain, an armed citizen.
Of course, the sportsmen’s debate also comes up every time I talk about gun control. People will say they provide food for their families with their hunting rifles or shotguns. Silly argument, because then they’ll just want your handguns. Just? I don’t think so. Personally, my handguns are for the protection of my family. A hunting rifle is a piss poor substitute in this situation. It’s dangerous to be wielding indoors, in hallways and doorways. Its rounds will easily penetrate the human body at indoor ranges (typically 7yds maximum) and continue right on through any walls in the immediate vicinity to endanger the lives of anyone on the other side of said walls. So to those who would defend gun rights by claiming they should be able to keep their rifles for hunting. Shut up. You’re not helping anyone, not even yourselves.
The other side of the sportsmens debate is nothing short of laughable. Semi-automatics, ie “black guns”. You can’t take them away, I hunt with them. OK. What do you hunt? Varmints? Reasonable. Understandable. But a .22 or even better, a .17hmr is a much cheaper and just as effective solution to any varmint problem. So do you hunt large game? Shame on you. I’m not a newcomer to ballistics and bullet makeup and penetration. Hunting anything larger than say, a coyote, with a .223 is irresponsible. The difference in energy imparted between a 308 and a .223 at 200 yards is no joke. I’m not saying the .223 isn’t deadly, but it’s much less of a sure thing when compared to a 308 a 30-06 or any other purpose designed hunting cartridge, and the bigger your game gets, the more and more this holds true. I believe you should be allowed to own an AR-15, an SKS or any one of a dozen semi-automatic rifles classified by the government as “assault rifles” (nice propaganda that there) But I don’t hide behind some BS like, “my ar-15 is my hunting rifle”. First, if you want to just hunt, buy a Remington 30-06, scope it and go hunt. It’s cheaper than an AR-15 and has a dozen different purpose designed cartridges to meet your hunting needs. If you want to own an AR-15 for plinking, varmint clearing or just because you believe it is your right to do so, then just say so. I’m with you, I believe you have the right to own one too, but again, not being straight forward doesn’t do anyone any good.
The one argument that is inevitable, is the number of gun related deaths in the US on a yearly basis. Liberals will simply tell you the numbers, which I’ll admit are high, and then say “there, that’s why we need stricter gun control laws”, this is inevitably the first thing a liberal will try in order to convince you that gun control is a good thing. To the uninformed, seeing those numbers can be convincing all on their own. Which is why I recommend you inform yourself. Of the guns deaths each year in the US, 97% are related to use of an illegal firearm. The guns criminals use were obtained illegally in the first place, and thinking that taking guns away from legally armed citizens will prevent gun deaths caused by illegally owned and obtained guns is just plain asinine. It’s like thinking that declawing the lions you have in captivity will prevent the lions in the wild from killing more gazelle. It’s just ridiculous to even consider as a possibility, yet somehow, they think this is a valid argument. Also, the fact remains that cancer kills FAR more people in the US every year than guns. If they put half the effort into curing cancer that they’ve put into trying to disarm legally armed citizens, we might be just a hair closer to a cure or a better way to fight it, prevent it, or slow it down.
What about the accidental deaths they’ll say, what about the innocent children that die each year? It’s true, innocent children die every year due to gun related accidents. These deaths are a tragedy, but an avoidable one. First, the parents are responsible. You can call me a cold hearted bastard. You can cry about how your so-and-so’s son/nephew/cousin died in an accident involving a firearm in the home. I’ll simply tell you this, the gun owner was at fault, not the gun. When I was a child, my parents didn’t hide the guns away and make them a mystery I was determined to investigate. Instead, my father would break them down, and clean them in my presence. He’d explain each part, and what it did, show me how the gun came apart and went back together. He’d explain how the gun worked, and what the bullet did, and of course, how dangerous it was if improperly used. He displayed them in a gun cabinet in the open (locked, but visible behind glass doors). He basically removed all the mystery and fascination from them, thereby removing my natural childs curiosity. Kids that die in an accident know as much about guns as they’ve learned from TV. Mom and/or dad keep the gun in a drawer or in a closet, hidden away, and never talk about it. When a child stumbles across it, their natural curiosity kicks in and bad things happen, because these same uninformed people don’t keep the gun in a safe, or they don’t use a cable lock on it, and they leave it where a curious child can find it. That makes them negligent, it makes them responsible, and in my opinion, it makes them criminal. I have loaded guns in my home. My children have all seen them, they know about them, they know how they work, and they know what they can do if improperly handled. Education, of the owner and the child, is the simplest solution to avoiding accidental gun deaths in the home.
Don’t get me started on gun shows, waiting periods and the NRA. These things all irk me to no end. The NRA does a lot of good for gun rights, the pour tens of millions of dollars into lobbying in favor of gun rights, and they’re probably the only reason the liberals haven’t managed to take away our 2nd amendment rights. But those people are insane. Or they’re genius. They approach gun rights the same way PETA approaches animal rights, with an extremism and a twistedness that is spectacular. Personally, as a gun owner, I feel that the NRA, while helping me in Washington, does nothing to help my case in the eyes of the general populace. Charlton Heston for example, was a quack. Ted Nugent is headed down the same road. I believe in our second amendment rights, but those are two individuals are not representative of the average American gun owner.
Waiting periods? Why do so many pro-gun activists have a problem with a waiting period? I just don’t understand. If I decide I want a gun, whether it be a long gun, or a handgun, I’m not going to make that decision the same day that I “need” the gun. There are only three reasons I could fathom for needing a firearm NOW instead of tomorrow or a few days from now. First – I have been invited to go hunting with my buddies, and they’re leaving today for the weekend. Well, if you don’t have a hunting rifle already, then you’re obviously not a hunter, which means you need to sit your ass down in a hunter safety course before you go anywhere anyhow. I don’t want you in the woods with me until you’ve been to one, and most states require it now anyhow, so while we wait for you to attend, that is a perfect time for you to not complain about a waiting period. Second – my life is in danger, and I need to protect myself. Some, not all, but some, states actually have a provision for this. If you can prove imminent danger to you or your family, they will waive the waiting period, and provide a temporary permit for the weapon. Once the period passes, you are still required to go through the normal processes for firearms owernership. Third – I intend to commit a crime, and I need a gun for my *insert violent crime here*. Great, thanks for sharing, go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, and don’t forget to give bubba a kiss on your way in.
And last, of course, gun shows. I love a good gun show. I love the deals that can be had. And I hate that nut jobs can buy guns here and do so without having to go through almost any of the normal hoops. First, this last is only true in certain states now. I’ll tell you, how they handle it here in NC is how it should work everywhere. The vendors can now do instant background checks right at the counters, so if you’re purchasing a long gun, you don’t have to wait long at all before you can take home your shiny new purchase and start practicing on milk jugs and watermelons. But here, if you want to buy a handgun, you go to the sheriff, you fill out a form, and they process that form and provide you with a single “purchase permit” that you can hang on to for 3 years, or you can run out and buy a gun the same day you get the permit. Receiving the permit takes a few days, my wife got hers after 4 days, I got mine after a week (hey, what’s THAT all about!?!) So if you have such a permit, you can purchase a handgun at the gun shows here and be on your merry way. Gun shows always have schedules out in advance, so it’s really not difficult to plan ahead and get your permit before the show dates. People who “legally” purchase a handgun on one of the states that makes it so easy, then use that gun to harm someone else, only help make things more difficult for the rest of us. If you’re a law abiding citizen that purchases guns at gun shows who is against some of the gun show legislation out there, you need to ask yourself why you’re so against it if you’ll still be able to purchase, and if it help keeps the guns out of criminal hands (which in the end gives liberals less excuses to try and take them out of my hands and yours) isn’t for the better in the end?
In short, I’m a firm believer in my second amendment rights, I also believe in the right to carry concealed WITH the proper permit (law abiding citizens should never have a problem with proper licensing for handguns). Liberals can say what they want, but at heart, criminals are cowards, and if they know my house occupied by a gun owner, they’re going to move along to a home they consider a safer target. By the same standard, if more people were armed, legally, there would be less targets for crime, and if more criminals were shot in the course of a crime by a legally armed citizen, there’s a good chance, more would be criminals might think twice about changing their career paths. But, take guns away from the people who own them legally and use them responsibly, and not only does the government feel less inhibited, but the criminals feel less threatened, because they’ve still got their illegally obtained guns, and with no fear of retribution, they’ll put them to use even more frequently than they do now.
No comments:
Post a Comment