Gun-Controllers, Answer This!Submitted by Vots on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 22:35
Last night we had somebody post a question for the Daily Paul. They asked what's wrong with a little gun control? Well this was my response. I planned on writing something up like this to post, but the gun control thread last night made me write it as a comment. But I think this is something that could be passed around to people who are for gun control, as the rhetorical questions that I pose, WILL make them think. Below was my point by point reply.
I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns.
If no one is coming for our guns, why did Gov. Cuomo sign legislation doing so? Why did Illinois just a few weeks ago try to ban and confiscate all semi-automatic weapons? Why are there congressman currently serving a term who have said -- if they could -- they would ban all guns?
I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen.
Why are you so certain of this? Didn't the Soviets confiscate guns and kill millions upon millions of people afterwards? Didn't the Nazis do it right before they rounded up any "non-Aryan" races? What about when the Chinese did it and killed millions of political dissenters afterward? Have you forgotten the 262 million people murdered by their own government (democide) in the past century? Are those countries too radical and therefore it could never happen in such a modern country like the USA? How do you explain Australia then? Or the UK? Are those not civil, modernized countries? It happened to them, did it not? Was the result effective? Do you think the murder rate going up in the U.K. since the ban has any correlation? Why is U.K. gun control the standard when they're the most violent country in the E.U.? Is the U.K.'s violent crime rate of over 2,000 per 100,000 people higher or lower than the U.S.A.'s violent crime rate of 386 per 100,000 people? If violent crime is rampant in the U.K., what's the purpose of having gun control? Do you think it's possibly because they have the ability to subject their citizens to constant audio and video monitoring? Do you think it's possibly because they have more of an ability to strip their citizen's of privacy? Did you know the U.K. puts cameras in the bathrooms and changing rooms of schools? Did you know that the U.K. police can arrest you for simply insulting somebody on Facebook? Does that sound like a government that respects its people? Looking through history, did you know that governments taking away the people's arms under the guise of safety, is the oldest trick in the book to achieve a police state?
I have no problem with stricter laws.
While extermination doesn't seem plausible by our current government, doesn't a police state haunt you? If you have no problem with stricter laws, you're on the road of accepting the authoritarian, police state laws like the U.K. has, and that's a future you look forward to?
Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's.
If 3 armed burglars are breaking into your house, do you not want to defend yourself? Do you think the police will get there before or after they break into your house? Will you even have time to call the police? Do you think a 10 round magazine will defend yourself against 3 armed burglars? You do know we live in the real world and not Hollywood movies, right? Are you not aware that FBI reports show that criminals have routinely received multiple, direct hits of .45acp hollow points and still continued to fight? AK 47's and semi-automatic weapons of its kind have been around for more than half a century, and now they're a problem all of a sudden? Maybe there's a bigger picture we aren't evaluating properly?
And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one.
What do you think the citizens of New York think about that? Do you think Illinois residents feel their guns are safe right now? When Obama calls for a ban on "assault" weapons, how could anyone feel the comfort that they will be able to keep their guns?
These were the same views Reagan had: In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed. As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public. He also supported a 15-day waiting period.
Do you think using that Reagan quote is a silver bullet against me? I for one have very few favorite Presidents and Reagan isn't one of them, he was just like any other President of the past handful of generations -- say one thing but do another -- and you think these Reagan facts are slam dunk talking points against me? But don't you see it? They banned fully automatic weapons 25 years ago, but why? Was it because they said it was a gun Americans just shouldn't have? Because they said we're just banning these military weapons but you can have the rest? Then explain the current attacks on "the rest"? Do you not see it? Don't you see they take what they can now, and come for the rest later? And what did the banning of carrying loaded firearms in public do? Did the California criminals abide by it? Aren't loaded, concealed carry laws much more common now anyways? If that was such a good thing, why do so many states now allow it instead?
And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.
How do you not understand what a well-regulated militia means in this day and age? Is there not plenty of recorded conversations by George Mason (drafted the 2nd amendment) or Thomas Jefferson or George Washington that you can readily pull up online? Can you not pull up whole transcripts of their words describing the meaning of the 2nd amendment? Did they not clearly explain what the purpose is? Do their words not clearly say that the militia is the last resource of man power against a foreign or domestic enemy, and the last check/balance to prevent a tyrannical government? And if the militia had to be called upon to fight a foreign enemy that had invaded the country, you would want them armed with a musket?
Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.
Who controls those drones? Don't Americans? Do you think every American would openly follow such an order? If you're not sure, why don't you ask somebody that is serving or has served in the military what they think of such an order? How about a police man? Or any citizen for that matter? Do you think a majority of Americans would comply with orders to kill their own? Are there not Sheriffs all over the country denouncing any future gun restrictions? Don't you think the military would be the same way? Or would you agree with Piers Morgan who thinks a hypothetical, tyrannical government would just drop nuclear bombs on us and rule over a radiated, nuclear wasteland? I guess that would show us, right?
Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is.
The 2nd amendment clearly states the people have the right to bear arms, but I think you and I are actually in agreement that jets, missiles, and bombs are not firearms, correct? And in a modern world, shouldn't at least some of the militia be trained on such modernized things? Have you ever heard of the Dick Act of 1903? Go read it, what does it say? Not only did Congress clarify that every able-bodied American male between the ages of 18 and 45 were militia (Reserve Militia), but did Congress not appropriate funds to each state to create a higher-trained militia group, called the National Guard?
Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and yours is right after it?
What if I say you're extreme based upon the above questions? What if I say you're extreme because you're trying to argue for more gun control but use propaganda terms like "assault weapons" to describe an AR-15 and a "rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds" when guns don't hold clips (with the exception of the en bloc)? Should you not become more familiar with guns before arguing against their use?
And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?
And if you know this, why insist on continuous blame of inanimate objects? Did we not have fully automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles readily available to the public for more than half a century? Why didn't we have mass school shootings and movie theater shootings occurring on a regular basis just 20+ years ago? And the media should get its fair share of the blame, shouldn't it? Don't you think that somewhere in the sick minds of some of these people, they want that quick 15 minutes of sickening glory from the mass media? But even more pressing, do you think we're doing our best to improve the opportunities in the inner cities where the overwhelming majority of gun murders occur? Do you think the people who live in these poverty-stricken areas of these large cities are getting the best education opportunities? Do you think there are enough plentiful jobs to grow prosperity in those areas? Do you think that people who grow up in those areas are against a wall of odds to succeed? What do you think happens to people when they've exhausted all options and their backs are against the wall? Do you think we are doing our best as a civilization to help those parts of the country that need it most? But even more damning, don't you think we as a society have diminished? Would you agree that we are failing to pass on good values and morals? Wouldn't you agree that our current society is a horrible role model for children?
Before anybody even thinks about gun control, those are questions that need to be pondered. I think it's quite clear too many are making emotional decisions instead of looking for the causes which hide behind the curtains.