I fear my government far more than I fear my neighbor.
My neighbor and I are on even footing. Even if my neighbor
gets the drop on me, it’s still “mono y mono,” but the state…the government…has
clout, manpower, and firepower that I can’t match.
If my neighbor comes for me, he’s going to have his hands
full. When the government comes for me, I don’t stand a chance…unless I am armed
(preferably to the teeth).
The fact that we are even debating inhibiting law-abiding
citizens' constitutional right to bear arms highlights the real
problem: only the law-abiding citizens would be detrimentally affected by such
a law.
Criminals will always plan and prepare to resist
authorities, while law-abiding citizens resist criminals and will only resist authorities
if/when those authorities become oppressive. So, by inhibiting law-abiding citizens’ constitutional
right to bear arms, we not only inhibit law-abiding citizens’ ability to resist
criminals (increasing dependence on the state…wow, common Liberal/Democrat theme),
but we also inhibit citizens' ability to resist the oppression of the state.
Logically, why then would the government want to deprive
law-abiding citizens of their arms? Um, let’s see…1 + 1…
Of course, two things tend to contradict the notion that the
solution to gun violence is to inhibit law-abiding citizens' constitutional
right to bear arms. History tells us that man kills his fellow man by whatever
means is available. History also tells us that governments have killed far more
unarmed/disarmed citizens than any single man ever has or ever will. So, when/if
the government takes your guns, while death will not decrease, at least we’ll be
able to say fewer people died at the end of a citizen’s gun.
Ya know, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside…my internment
camp…where I wish I could smuggle a weapon…any weapon.
It is ridiculous to focus on a heinous act such as the
shootings in Connecticut and
suggest that somehow the method makes a difference. I wonder if any of the
parents would be comforted to find their child wasn’t actually shot, but was instead stabbed, beaten, strangled, or simply died of shock? Somehow, I think not.
Also, the tool that facilitated the act should not be the
focus. If that was sound reasoning, after 9/11 we should have waged some sort of war on box
cutters. If only Home Depot hadn’t had a sale on box cutters,
thousands of Americans might still be alive today.
What about cars? How many people die every year in vehicle accidents
compared to gun deaths? Are privately owned vehicles next on the list?
My brother was shot in the face by some low-life thug. It
wasn’t the gunshot, the bullet, or the gun that killed him, it was the idiot
that pulled the trigger because he lived in a culture that had distorted all
appreciation of law, order, justice, humanity, and life itself. Take away the
tool, and I can guarantee that same idiot, values unchanged, would have ended
my brother’s life.
The gun is an inanimate scapegoat, unable to defend itself, but
it is unfortunately and obstructively misaligned with the political ideology/agenda
of many of the political elite and their media proxies. For many, guns are true empowerment, true freedom. When the
government comes for me, and history confirms that they eventually will, I don’t want to
be dragged away kicking and screaming, I want to go down with guns blazing.
They’d love to subdue and ultimately oppress us with laws,
but I intend to make certain they have to do it by force.
No comments:
Post a Comment