I don’t know about any of you, but I am so — so — so very sick and tired of this debate. I feel like a skipping record, but when I step back and look at this situation, I start to ask myself: Why? Why am I defending myself? I didn’t do anything wrong. And even though I know this, you know this, and everyone else who knows me knows this, I also know that if I don’t join the fight, and sit on my ass, do nothing but wait, that it is *me* is going to be punished, right alongside all of my fellow law abiding gun owners.
Nobody is going to punish the crazies. Nobody is going to punish the thugs on the streets of Chicago who are stealing the guns used to commit all the heinous shootings. Nobody is going to question the medication that all of these mass shooters were on when they did the things that made them famous on CNN. No, nobody on “their side” (which is commonly, and mistakenly, referred to as the ‘left’ … ill get to that in just a moment) is going to punish those who are at the heart of the problem, because it’s simply too difficult and too long term. They need short term solutions. A band-aid that looks nice in the wrapper, but you soon realize has no adhesive. And it is to those people that I will be talking to.
But, let’s be honest for a moment, there are plenty of examples of “right wingers” going anti-gun as well. I could list of several Republican politicians who have supported and enacted all kinds of pointless, meaningless legislation that did nothing but make life harder on people who already obey the law and don’t murder people. But, with all that out of the way, lets get to the meat of my rant, and address the people I aim to address. Statists. Whether you’re left, right, middle, or undecided, if you believe, for any reason what so ever, that my guns, or his guns, or his guns, or her guns, are the problem, and that the solution is ‘less guns’, then you are what I call a Statist, and it is to you that I am about to speak to.
As I said in the opener, I am sick and tired of being on the defensive. I am sick and tired of the lazy-minded half-ass approach of blaming people who have nothing to do with the situation for the blood shed, but even more than that, I am sick and tired of these proposals on how to “fix” things and make us all safer, and I’m going to get it all off my chest by talking about all these anti-gun talking points I see being used in every nook & cranny of the internet.
Oh, really? Wow. As a law abiding gun owner, I guess I would have to disagree. Now, as a criminal, yes, they’re pretty easy if you can find someone to steal from, or know a guy who knows a guy that will sell you a hi-point 9mm out of his trunk in the alley for $250. But – please tell me how making it harder for me to buy a gun, makes it harder for that guy to buy his gun from the guy in the alley?
I’ve heard the reasons: Because the guy who sold him the gun illegally would have a harder time of getting one. Ok, and if we follow this line of thinking all the way through, the only conclusion is that nobody can have guns so that bad people can’t get their hands on them. So, really, what they’re saying is, guns should be banned, right? I mean, based on their rhetoric, I believe it’s safe to assume that they believe any legal gun owner could, at any time, choose to sell his gun to someone not allowed to get one, and that person would then use the illegal gun to commit a murder, so then, the only way to prevent that is to prevent anyone from ever getting a gun, even if they’ve done nothing wrong. Well, that doesn’t really pair well with their next argument:
Ya see, I’m the kind of person who thinks things out a few steps in advance. and when I think this through to the end, like in the above “Guns are too easy to get”, the only conclusion is, in order for “their” proposal to work, law abiding gun owners, everywhere, must give up their guns. Their argument hinges on the idea that any law abiding gun owner is a potential mass shooter, simply because he or she has access to a firearm…so, naturally, the only answer to their contrived problem is to ban anyone from owning guns so that nobody can do anything bad with them. So, that option doesn’t work, and gun-grabbers are once again proven as liars.
No. I don’t. None of us do. Back in 1994, when I was too young to even know what politics were, those who represent gun owners DID compromise and we all got the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban from ol’ Bill Clinton. A travesty that our own Government admits had no measurable impact on gun violence. In fact, if you compare the numbers, more people were killed with those scary scary guns in any year during the AWB, than any year after it. So, if banning guns works, then why does gun violence go down after the ban is lifted? Seems like an idiotic statement to me. And that is the main reason IGOR exists. No compromises. Never Neutral. These aren’t buzz words. They’re what we believe to our soul is the only approach to the 2nd Amendment.
Oh? I wasn’t aware of those as far as the law was written. But let’s check:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nope, I don’t see any small print in those words…no asterisks or foot notes. Just real, simple, language. This argument is typically followed up by people suggesting that the 1st Amendment is limited because you are not allowed to “Walk into a theatre and scream FIRE”. Yet another short sighted thought by simple minded people. You can, indeed, scream fire in a crowded theatre, *IF* there is a fire. But even so, I don’t see anyone making the argument that citizens’ vocal cords should be clipped to prevent them from illegally shouting fire and starting a panic. So, no, the 1st Amendment does not have limitations in the spirit of the Constitution. Neither does the 2nd. This argument is fundamentally flawed.
But, as I said, the 2nd Amendment was written in extremely clear language for a reason..and if gun grabbers disagree with that language, the Constitution provides them with a means to change it with a Constitutional Amendment so, if you ask me, they need to get off their lazy asses and start that petition and do things the right way.
Sigh. Anyone still using this insipid, ridiculous argument is an intellectual coward. By this line of thinking, the 1st Amendment does not apply to the internet, radio, or even Television. People who believe this completely lack the fundamental resources to understand why they’re wrong, or even just how wrong they are, and they’re not grown up enough to sit at this table.
If you’re one of these people: You’re an idiot. You really are and should kindly click here for something more suited to your education.. If you knew anything about firearms, you’d know why I say this. But you don’t, and you never will, because your ego can’t grasp the possibility that you just might be wrong about this, and so you avoid any situation that might lead to that conclusion. But, that aside, people aren’t “offing” each other in mass #’s with AK47’s and AR15’s. If you were to take a look at the #’s, you’d see more people are murdered with knives, baseball bats, hell, even bare hands, than are murdered with any rifle, not just limited to an AR15. So, your idiotic idea is that we should ban AR15’s so that nobody can use a .45 calibre pistol to shoot up a church? That’s your idea, and you want me to take you seriously and treat you with dignity and respect? Good luck.
Any moron touting this argument has NEVER been to a gun show and made a purchase. If this is your argument: you are hereby excluded from participation in this discussion because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you need to be sat in time out while the grown ups converse. BUT – let’s just say – for arguments sake – that this actually did happen and was a problem…there are already laws in place that make it illegal, so…adding another law is going to do what to the people who currently have no regard for law? They’re just going to ignore that one as easily as they did all that came before it. There are well over 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and you think 1 more is going to stop the next shooting? Get your head out of your ass.
Do I seem frustrated? Am I coming off like a condescending prick? Good. Mission Accomplished. Hopefully it’s got that hamster wheel turning in a few gun-grabbers skulls, but…I doubt it. Whether or not they learned a single thing: I’m not compromising. I’ve done nothing wrong and, as we’ve already went through, their ideas don’t solve a damn thing unless they have a magic wand and can *POOF* make all guns – every where – vanish over night.
Even then, we’d just go back to the days of bigger, stronger, men having their way with everyone smaller than they are. (Don’t forget, all guns gotta go, so no more armed police either) Oh, you’re okay with a cop having a gun, but not me? You’re an uneducated moron and your opinion is invalid.
Though, this rant isn’t just about picking apart gun grabber arguments… I happen to subscribe to a few ideas I believe can help fix some problems. I should note, though, these aren’t original and unique to me. These have been offered, time and time again, and keep getting turned down. Why? Who knows. Probably the ego thing again.
If you’re a gun grabber, this is going to be a little difficult for you to understand, but stick with me here: Damn near every single mass shooting in the last who-knows-how-many decades has taken place in a … wait for it… GUN FREE ZONE. But how can this be? It’s gun free! That’s because the murderous psychopath doesn’t give a rip for that sign or those laws. He never has and he never will. We can keep passing all of the laws we want and it will NEVER have an impact on his desires. That’s why I propose we get rid of these gun-free zones. The gun isn’t the issue. The psychopath is. When a police officer walks into your local Gas station, do you begin to soil yourself because a gun is around? If yuo do, I’m not really sure what to say to you besdies, perhaps, goo goo gah gah?
But, chances are, you don’t. You probably feel more secure knowing that a good guy with a gun is standing a few aisles away in case something goes wrong. Well, then, what’s the difference? Someone like me had to pass, at a minimum, 3 Federal NICS background checks to carry a firearm. Someone like me can’t have a shred of history with mental illness or domestic abuse. Concealed Carry permit holders aren’t “converted felons” with a chance to relapse. Felony Convictions excludes a citizen from being issued a permit – forever. So, really, what’s the reason for having a GUN FREE zone where people can’t protect themselves?
These locations are specifically targeted by crazy people for this very reason – the shooter knows nobody there can shoot back. These signs are safe havens for psychos and it’s why I flat out refuse to patronize any business that puts one up. I feel safer knowing I have the ability to protect myself, and my family, if the need were to arise. If statistics are on our side. Who’s got the backs of gun-grabbers??
Interesting concept, isn’t it? But…if you give it time and actually do some research, you’ll see I’m right. Anywhere between 90 and 97% of all gun violence is committed by a person who was already not allowed to have a gun. (the % varies from source to source, but the conclusion remains the same). That means they’re only interested in pursuing 3-10% of gun violence. Why? That seriously doesn’t make a lick of sense, and is part of the reason I’m so damn fed up with this monumentally pointless discussion.
What incentive do people have to not break the law these days? Statists are all too eager to join the pity party when criminals talk about how hard their lives were. They get shipped off to spend a few years time in some prison with the rest of their buddies. Obviously the punishment isn’t that bad considering the recidivism rates in this country (Hell, in Illinois alone!) and that the majority of gun crime is committed by someone who was already in trouble for another crime. If you’re a gun grabber, pay attention. Seriously. This isn’t a debate. This is a fact. Sit up straight.
Or, we have the Department of Justice who prosecuted a mere 44 out of 48,321 felons who were caught, in just one year, trying to illegally purchase firearms. 44 out of 48,000. Even a statist can admit, that’s totally FUBAR.
Or, we have “progressive”, bleeding heart, idiotic judges who refuse to hand out even the maximum sentences for gun related crime. So, again, I ask, why can’t we start punishing the heart of the problem, instead of going after people like me?
But, in closing, if you are someone who believes that my having access to an AR-15 results in death & destruction, let me be clear: I am not interested in working with you on your terms. I am not interested in compromising my rights to help give you the illusion of safety. I’m not interested in being your friend, your ally, or your scapegoat. While legal gun ownership (more specifically, Concealed Carry) has been on the rise, gun violence has been on the decline but, unfortunately, media coverage of it has increased to a level never-before-seen, giving the illusion that things are actually worse, when in reality they’re much, much better. But, you wouldn’t know that if all you did was watch pundits like Rachel Maddow & Piers Morgan as they shovel feed you pure, unadulterated bullshit.
And that’s all you’re good for, Mr. & Mrs. Statist. You’re livestock for racist, angry people. You’re being shovel fed their bullshit to keep your minds greasy, lethargic, and fat. You’re just smart enough to have an opinion in this matter, regurgitating talking points, but not smart enough to figure out one all your very own. And, until that changes, stop talking to me about compromise, because it’s never going to happen. The only way your ideas are going to work are if all guns – every where – are gone…and, while that feat is literally impossible to achieve, the first step in trying is with repealing the 2nd Amendment. There’s a process for that. If you decide to get off your lazy ass and try – ill meet you on that ideological battle field, and you better come prepared to fight.