Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Anti Gun Arguments And A Lack Of Logic

  MrColionNoir makes a good point about anti gunners and their arguments. I've heard the nuclear weapon comment for many years. They also like to throw out ridiculous statements about owning tanks, fighter planes, and bombs. Eventually anti gunners get around to snidely saying that we can have all of the muskets that we want.
  That's very generous of them.
  Let's talk about a few of the points that anti gunners commonly attempt to make. MrColionNoir gave nukes a lot of coverage in his vid. That's a good place to begin.
  Nuclear warheads are weapons of mass destruction. They are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
  The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to possess small arms for both self defense and to guard against a tyrannical government. It doesn't guarantee the right to own WMDs. Hopefully Piers Morgan will get a memo on that argument, and stop wasting air time on such stupidity. Hell... It would be nice if MSNBC, CNN and the rest of those working for the Ministry Of Propaganda received an e-mail on that topic.
  OK, so what about bombs, grenades, and artillery shells? They're all classified as ordinance, and are not considered small arms. The rights of citizens to own ordinance is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Sorry if you disagree. I didn't write the document, or sit on the courts during firearms rulings. The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own an appropriate militia type weapon that an individual soldier might use. These weapons are what we refer to as "Small Arms."
  The antis enjoy twisting things around, and pretending that owning small arms as a defense against tyranny is the same as wanting tanks, fighter planes, etc.
  Guess what? We CAN own them. The vehicles have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment though. You may not be able to buy the latest and greatest in military equipment, but you can own fighter planes (check out an airshow once in a while) and tanks.
  You can even possess the machineguns that go on these vehicles. Of course you must find them, pass the background check, jump through the NFA hoops, and raise the mountain of money required for these arms.
  The tank's main gun however is still a no no. We're getting back to talking about ordinance when discussing cannons.
  So if tanks and fighters are your thing, then go for it.
  I always laugh at the anti gunner somehow trying to compare a  Glock to a F16 fighter. They are an illogical bunch of people.
  Now for my favorite part... muskets. The antis love arguing that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned rapid firing weapons like AKs, ARs, and other modern semi automatic weapons. They believe that since muskets (and rifles) were around during the 18th century, this is what we should be limited to owning.
  Doesn't that sound fair? 
  This point may take a while to address. Get some coffee.
  First of all, the Founding Fathers were well educated, and very intelligent. These gentlemen kept up on current events, and breakthroughs in science. As students of history they realized that both Europe and America were constantly in and out of wars. It's inconceivable that these men expected technology to stand still and firearms development to stagnate. After coming through the Revolution, they recognized the importance of firearms in civilian hands. It's foolish to believe that they never considered weapons evolving when writing the 2nd Amendment.
  Bear in mind that a rapidly firing rifle with a 20 round capacity  was available at the time of the Constitution being written. As this weapon was a major breakthrough, the odds are great that the Founding Fathers heard of it.  There were also breach loading sniper rifles on the battlefield during our revolution. Their rate of fire was much greater than the average musket. Our Founders would have known of these guns. The birth of our nation relied upon firearms. Those in power at the time surely took an interest in the topic.
  Some on the Left like to say that the early Americans needed firearms to protect themselves from the Indians. Supposedly that's no longer relevant and we can all just call 911 instead of protecting ourselves.
  I ask you. Who do you think would need a firearm more, an 18th century American living in Washington, DC or someone walking the streets of Chicago, DC, Baltimore, or Philly in 2013?
  BTW, the courts have ruled that the police actually do not have to protect you. I'll let you read about this case. It's an eye opener for those that think the, "To Protect And Serve" decal on the side of patrol cars really means something.
  Of course police officers officers will do everything possible to protect people when they're around, but most of their actions are reactive. They show up to take reports and string up crime scene tape. During the LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Sandy it's doubtful that was even done. American citizens were left to fend for themselves, and I'm sure that those owning firearms felt a lot more comfortable than the unarmed.
  Let's get back to semi autos not being covered under the Constitution since they didn't exist in the 18 century.
  Mormonism wasn't around at that time either. Does that mean that it's not covered under freedom of religion?
  Primitive printing presses were used during that time period. Does that mean that our freedom of the press doesn't apply to cable news networks and the internet? Are the print reporters using ink and paper the only ones protected as journalists?
  This list can go on and on. The core meaning in the "Bill Of Rights" remains the same. Restrictions are laid upon what the government can do, and our natural rights are listed. These individual rights are not granted by the Constitution. The are merely enumerated.
  This is the most popular question for gun owners. Some will ask "Why do you need an Assault Weapon or 30 round magazines (actually they'll say clips)?" 
  We have a "Bill Of Rights." It's not a "Bill Of Wants And Needs." If I choose to exercise my rights in regards to assembly, religion, firearms, etc. then it is my business. I do not have to justify what I do or purchase with a "Need."
  As long as I obey the laws of the land and do no harm to others, there is no just cause to infringe upon my Constitutional rights. We generally don't give up rights, and possessions because others might misbehave. Most of us believe in punishing the guilty and leaving the innocent alone. Those supporting big government are baffled by this thought.
  I will however answer the question about hi cap magazines and assault weapons. First of all, My life is worth at least as much to me as our President's is to him. My child is as valuable to me as his are to both him and his wife. If the agents guarding Obama and his family feel the need for 17 round mags in their pistols and 30 rounders in their M4's then I want similar weapons. If our local law enforcement officers feel that my county is dangerous enough to warrant having 15 round magazines in their handguns and AR15's in their trunks, then I want the same for my own protection. I suppose if our President authorizes lifetime Secret Service protection for myself and my family (as he did for himself), then I may bend a bit on the AR's. Until that time, I'll hold onto my weapons.
  We know what our country looks like in 2013. We do not however know what it will look like in 2023 or 2033. I don't know what kind of country my grandkids will inherit (other than obviously being in debt). There is clearly no need to take up arms against an oppressive government today, but who can say what the future may bring. Should things change for the worse, I'd prefer my XDM and M4(gery) over a revolver and a bolt action rifle.
  I am not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer. I'm just a firearms enthusiast, and hobbyist. Every point I've made is common knowledge. Every statement has been repeated by others over the years. Very little that I wrote above is original, and none of it requires a law degree to figure out.
  We have a Constitutional scholar serving as our 44th President. He believes that the 2nd Amendment deals with the right to own duck hunting guns.  Perhaps he should consider suing Harvard for a refund, and spend more time doing independent reading.

No comments:

Post a Comment