Gun Control Logic that … Actually Makes Sense

I never thought I would, but I have actually found some arguments for gun control that I can’t really deny. The reasons below actually make sense.

Why we need gun control and why it does/will work:

First, a few stats:

  • Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago have such low crime rates and the cops there need guns.
  • Washington DC’s murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to the strict gun control laws they have passed. Indianapolis’ murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control laws they have passed.
  • The statistics that show high murder rates justify gun control, but statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
  • The Brady Bill and The Assault Weapons Ban both went into effect in 1994. They are the reason for the decrease in violent crime rates that have been on the decline since 1991.

Concerning the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

  • The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.
  • The National Guard is funded by the federal government, occupies property leased to the federal government, uses weapons owned by the federal government, punishes trespassers under federal law, and is a state militia.
  • The phrases,”right of the people peaceably to assemble,” – “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” – “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individuals. However, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
  • We don’t need guns against an oppressive government because the Constitution has internal safeguards. So we shouldn’t worry if the government bans and seizes all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution and it’s safeguards.
  • Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
  • The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because they are constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  • 556184_418587844892863_446650687_nFree speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but the only thing one is entitled to in order to protect oneself is bare hands.
  • The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution. The NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

Guns are too complex and unsafe for the average Joe:

  • Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  • A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  • Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen”. Gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
  • Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they serve no military purpose. Private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.

Guns, though inanimate, have a lot of power:

  • Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  • Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.553930_442867905798190_1772182474_n
  • A self-loading small arm can legitimately be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
  • The readily availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etcetera, is responsible for recent school shootings. Compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etcetera.

Regarding city employees:

  • Police operate within groups and have back up, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  • Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  • 560053_421848401233474_1510023146_nWe need to keep fire extinguishers in our homes in case of fire, but do not need to keep a gun in case of a home invasion.
  • Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for your protection.
  • Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police chiefs -who are desk-bound administrators working in a building filled with cops- need to carry a gun.
  • “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. Which is why the police need them but “civilians” do not.
  • Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. Which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

Gun Control  – Just. Makes. Sense.

  • Most people can’t be trusted. We should have laws against guns – which most people will abide by because people can be trusted.574681_421848174566830_325675679_n
  • We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time. Anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  • We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  • The majority of Americans want more gun control, just like the majority of Americans wanted slavery.

more gun control

Once gun laws are enacted, you don’t have to become a victim:71768_421848321233482_136167557_n

  • The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
  • In case of hom invasion, an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray. But an intruder shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  • Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields say that when you are confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense and give them what they want, …or run.”

The experts confirm all of this:

  • The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent articles on heart surgery.
  • You should consult an automotive engineer for safer gun controlseat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis and Diane Feinstein or Rosie O’Donnell for firearms expertise.
  • Charlton Heston, when president of the NRA, was a shill who should be ignored. Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  • The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

When government officials and anti-gun groups say they want to “Keep guns out of the wrong hands” they don’t mean you.

No, really…

Sarcasm Meter

New Discovery: First Half of the 2nd Amendment?

Someone shared this article with me called “NEW DISCOVERY: First Half of the 2nd Amendment” which asserts that the first half of the 2nd Amendment (which they’d never seen before) proves that the 2nd Amendment applies to the militia.

20140527-151030-54630619.jpg
The Bill of Rights have been around for almost 220 years and this is a “new” discovery? I love satire sites, I really do… The problem with satire sites is that many don’t realize it’s satire…

At any rate, I decided to take the opportunity to explain, a bit, how the Amendment is written and why.

A simple lesson in commas explains it very well.

Commas are used for many things. The two that come into play here are when listing things and framing clauses.

Let’s break it down.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.

The list of things it’s separating are the the militia and the right of the people. The clause is the explanation of why the militia is necessary.

If you remove the clause you get:

A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

However, if you remove the clause, it looks weird. You can make it a better sentence – prettier – by putting in the word ‘and’.

A well regulated Militia, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But, the writers of the Bill of Rights wanted to clarify that a militia is needed to keep our states secure. It could be written to mean the same thing using parenthesis, but it just wouldn’t be as pretty and neat…

A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People say that the right of the people bearing arms was to arm the militia, but since we have the military – the people no longer need to be armed. The military is, so we no longer need to be, but it’s two different things in the Amendment – not related. The military has no bearing on the right to bear arms.

If you know anything about history and when these were written, an explanation to why we were given this right isn’t really necessary – but an explanation as to why owning a firearm makes sense shouldn’t be necessary either and well…

I can’t prove you wrong, so I’ll just insult you instead…

As most of … well, probably all of you, know – I love a good debate or discussion.

I don’t care one bit for people who resort to name calling and insulting, but this day an age most ‘adults’ are unable to have a discussion without insulting the person they disagree with. Usually, at that point, I lose all interest and move on.

Today I discovered that there’s a loathsome debate tactic that I despise even more… Assumptions and condescension…

People, who know nothing about you – nothing – form an opinion of you based on nothing more than words on a screen. If you make a typo, you’re stupid and uneducated. If you disagree with their opinion, you’re doing so because of biased information you got from some source they despise. If you have a certain set of beliefs or way of doing things, you were raised by bigoted parents.

Heaven for bid someone learns I’m from the south. As soon as they do, I’m automatically a neo-nazi white supremacist who wants to bring back slavery…

And why do they say and think those things? … Because I disagree with their position on whatever hot topic is in the news.

Recently I had an encounter with a vile human being. It was on my favorite topic though – guns.

A woman, who we’ll refer to as “Kay”, left a comment on Joe the Plumber’s page about how America has more gun deaths than any other country and she didn’t get how people could say that more guns mean less crime.

I, probably, could have easily just moved along from that comment, but she said she’d like to know how that can be. So, I answered her. I said:

If you’d truly like to know how, I can explain it to you – but I don’t think you do. …The answer is in your own words when you said “there have been 12,042 gun deaths in America” – key word ‘GUN’…

In nations where guns were outlawed, murder, homicide, suicide, etc all went up – they just used something other than a gun… “

Someone read my reply and indicated they were genuinely interested in my sources for that information – so I shared some links. Well, this, apparently, did not sit too well with Kay…

The links I’d shared had been truncated, so they didn’t work right at first. Kay attacked that – which was ludicrous – but whatever makes you feel better… – I guess.

It was her next comment that was astounding to me… She said:

I am a Veteran, I am a Correctional veteran, I am a Law Enforcement Veteran so little girl if you think you are ‘schooling’ anyone I have a big surprise for you sister. First off your ability to copy and paste links from a Reich wing web site is commendable but do you actually have a factual defensible position to take? NO? Didn’t think so. Second did you intent to use links that work from you commendable ability to aptly demonstrate you are willing to be lead around by a nose ring regurgitating things you likely haven’t bothered to read but again, found on your NRA happy gunz gunz gunz web site. Do you even know what the SCOTUS cases are I quoted? I sincerely doubt it so when you put on your training bra to bud a pair I suggest you do some research first (no baby girl it really isn’t a bad word). So lets see your actual opinion, factually supported from unbiased sources. Go ahead little Muppet.. I dare you. (HINT Nation master uses sources globally it isn’t limited to the U. S. I’d avoid it since it isn’t verified or did you think the second amendment applies globally? I am betting you failed Geography.)

Apparently, being a Law Enforcement Veteran turns people into things that only resemble people. It must have, clearly, made her a walking encyclopedia for gun stats and information – including Geography, but it also turned her into a very vile, twisted and bitter human being. Well, that probably wasn’t what did it, but the point is the same: This lady is angry.

It’s sad really.

Honestly, my first thought – after reading it – was “Did I just read what I think I read? … Yeah, I did…” and then I had this reaction:
oh-no-you-didnt-1

This morning, when my husband got up to get ready for work, I read to him what she said. His response was a bit of a sigh and a “H’oh boy.”

This is not a topic in which I ‘play’. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Well, she didn’t… didn’t…

And the “do you actually have a factual defensible position to take? NO? Didn’t think so.” remark…

Really? I mean, really…?

She knows nothing about me, what I know, don’t know, read, watch, study or do for fun. And she has clearly never seen me or she’d know how completely wrong and misguided the put on your training bra to bud a pair” remark was. Yeah, I get it. Her point was to insult, doesn’t matter if it’s true – but sheesh…. At least insult something that can’t be refuted. I had a breast reduction surgery and I’m still well … top heavy… for goodness sake.

On this particular topic, she challenged the wrong Muppet…

Here’s the thing – why’d she reply in the hateful, condescending manner in which she did? See, I thought about that for a little while and came to a conclusion…

She was angry that she’d been proven wrong and was attempting to intimidate me into not responding.

It didn’t work.

Name calling and insulting is an intellectually dishonest effort to distract from the debate because the one who uses insults is incapable of refuting the facts or logic of their opponent. She, in addition to name calling and insulting, used condescension because resized_99263-ron-white_88-16226_t300she knew she didn’t have a leg to stand on.

I replied, gave her more facts, studies, research documents, etc – however – I doubt it will change anything. In fact, I doubt she’ll even reply. Facts have a way of silencing people…

Especially facts that are backed up with sources and info.

I seriously doubt she’ll respond, but I sort of hope she does because I already know my reply:

“I see your mind is made up and closed so I wouldn’t want to confuse you with any more facts…”