Friday, December 28, 2012

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work



The gun control debate in our country is in full swing as Democrats and Republicans use the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for their own political purposes. Diane Feinstein has already proposed a bill which will ban certain “firearm characteristics” such as semi-automatics, certain rifles, and even some hand guns. The purpose of which is to try to lower the amount of violent gun crimes. 



Of course this has the right-wingers up in arms, who believe that in order to stop events like Sandy Hook from happening again we need to place armed guards in our schools to protect our children.



Both sides are showing their claws on this one, with Republicans claiming that Democrats are attacking the constitution and the Second Amendment. Whereas Democrats are saying that those guns are killing people and they must be regulated more heavily.



Both sides are on TV as well, debating whether or not armed guards are the answer or gun bans. This is sort of interesting seeing as how the fiscal cliff is looming over our heads like a soggy diaper full of economic slavery and the media is focused on gun control, so my guess is Sandy Hook happened at just the right time so politicians can distract us from the real issues at hand.



I don’t think armed guards are the answer, nor do I think gun control is the answer. But with this new proposal being made I just have to get up and say something about this. As Americans we really need to focus on the real issues at hand, and whereas this issue of school shootings is a real thing that needs focus we must never forget what else is going on in our country.



So buckle up people, because I’m going to smash the gun control argument and talk about the violent over throw of the United States government, Reno style.



First off, let’s talk about the Second Amendment and the right to bare arms. There seems to be a lot of confusion over this amendment, both sides claiming that it actually means this or actually means that. But why is it we can’t understand this amendment? It’s all over one little comma. Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment.



“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.”



OK, a militia to protect the state…so a military, that makes sense. And let’s see here…the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. Seems to be pretty straight forward to me, but the debate that gun control proponents try to use lies within that little comma that’s separating the militia part from the people part, saying it’s just a slight…pause…to catch your breath. Let’s read the amendment one more time.



“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.”



You see it’s not the right of the militia to keep and bare arms that shall not be infringed; it’s the right of the people. That’s the PEOPLE as opposed to the MILITIA, two completely separate things which are clearly worded in this amendment. That’s really all there is to the Second Amendment. There aren’t many words at all, just very specific ones.



And why would the Founding Fathers put this in the Bill of Rights? Because the PEOPLE just got done fighting a war, for two years, against a tyrannical state MILITIA that tried to disarm them and make them submit. They knew that the time would come again for the America people to rise against the government, and they wanted the PEOPLE to be prepared for the next revolution by arming themselves. This idea is still very real today, as we are Americans and it is our duty as Americans to pick up our guns and revolt against the government when it’s not doing what we want it to...but unfortunately it’s a duty we have seemed to forgotten. A democracy can only be a true democracy when the PEOPLE have the power to overthrow their rulers and their MILITIA when it’s needed.



Funny, these gun control proponents can’t seem to point out any other places where these hack framers fucked up the wording.



All gun control really does is take the gun out of the law abiding citizens hand and put it into the criminal’s hands. Criminals, who have no regard for the law, will go out and buy these illegal weapons for the specific intent of committing a crime and hurting someone. A law abiding citizen, someone who does have respect for the laws, would not be buying these weapons to commit crimes or hurt people on purpose. So why are we taking the guns out of the good guys hands, essentially disarming the law abiding public?



A lot of people make the argument that there are millions of guns and that everyone has to have a gun because there are so many of them. So if that’s the case then why don’t we see these types of events all the time in the news? No, not everyone owns a gun, but a lot of people do, and if guns make people crazy and do bad things then why haven’t we wiped ourselves off the face of the planet yet? It’s because most people are good hearted folks and they don’t want to break the law or hurt anyone else.



Many pro-gun control folks say it’s because we don’t need these types of weapons, as if we may never have to rise up against a despotic government ever again. Many want guns completely banned, so no one can legally own a gun, believing that true law abiding citizens don’t arm themselves, they call the police. But disarming the public and allowing only the police and military to have firearms is a terrible idea. Think about it, who are you going to call against the police? Better yet how can you rise against your despotic government when the military has all of the power? You can’t, and that’s why we have the Second Amendment.



Let’s talk about school shootings…again. One of the ideas is that gun control will help prevent future school shootings from ever happening, but this can’t be further from the truth. Take Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for example. According to gun control proponents the shooting at Columbine high school could have never happened. Colorado had an assault weapons ban law on the books, a law that was meant to prevent bad people from getting a hold of powerful firearms and using them to commit crimes. Harris and Klebold both had illegal high powered assault weapons that used to commit their terrible act, killing a dozen and injuring more than twenty.

Crazy People 1 : Gun Control 0



The very idea that banning guns or limiting guns or any of that bullshit is to stop violent crimes from occurring, but when a crazy person wants to do something crazy he will find a way to do it, and no law will be able to stop him. Even if you were to outlaw guns completely they are still a very easy weapon to make, and if I can’t find one on the black market then I’m sure my pro-gun buddy who owns the metal shop could fashion one for me. Then I’ll go right up to you with it and shoot you in the face and you’re the only one who has paid the price.

Crazy People 2 : Gun Control 0



The fact is that these people have already broken gun control laws that were already in place. Gun Control laws with the specific intent to prevent these kinds of violent crimes from happening. That worked well, didn’t it? The odds of getting killed in a school shooting are 1/3,000,000. Holy shit, you have a better chance of being stuck by lightening for Christ’s sake!



Let’s talk about armed guards now. I don’t think we need them, because the whole idea of us having to place armed guards in our schools to protect our kids against gun violence when the odds are 1/3,000,000 is just alarmist bullshit. Your kids are just as safe in school today as they were before Columbine happened and before school shootings became a media hit.



But I do think that more states should allow conceal and carry laws so that the average citizen can own and carry their gun (hidden on their body) in public. I think this will in fact make violent crime rates go down, because you won’t know who’s packing.



Little experiment I got from Penn & Teller’s Bullshit show about gun control; let’s say every woman in the United States is issued a gun. They can do whatever they want with it, leave it at home, take it shopping with them, sell it, or give it away. Let’s say that only 50% of woman decide to keep their gun with them, are you really still going to risk mugging or raping a woman when you know there is a 50% chance that she’s got a gun?



So no we don’t need armed guards, we just need more people who are gun enthusiasts, and good law abiding people who have conceal and carry permits. It’s our duty to protect each other, and how can we do that when we aren’t armed and the criminals are?



I have to say that with these new gun control proposals I’m not really sure what the right to bare arms means any more. “You have the right to bare arms, but only the ones that we say you can have.” That does not sound like freedom to me at all. That sounds like the government telling me once again that I have the freedom to do something only if they like it. Is it right to allow the government to mandate that shit? Isn’t that kind of like the government telling you who you can or can’t marry, or forcing you to immunize your kids?



This is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists, to stop the government doing exactly this type of thing.



Think rationally folks, we don’t need armed guards in our schools, we don’t need more bullshit gun control laws, we just need more guns in the right hands, because when we make gun control laws we take guns out of the right hands and put them into the wrong hands. We can’t count on the government or the police or the military to get things done right, we can only count on ourselves.



The government says it is trying to make us safer by limiting our rights, and the scary part is that we are letting them. We allow email spying, wire tapping, freedom of speech violations, unlawful detentions, all kinds of crazy shit. Those were rights that people died fighting for so that we can have them and we’re just going to give them all away? We need to get back on the right track now. 



44 comments:

  1. You seem to use the terms "militia" interchangeably with "military". They aren't the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A militia. Def: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. MILITARY FORCE. It's a fucking military.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, but specifically a civilian force, not soldiers. We did not fight a war against a British militia; we fought against the British army. They are not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't matter Breanna, it's MILITARY FORCE. A militia is basically a small MILITARY FORCE. We did fight against a militia, stop trying to split hairs on this one. The words here are clear. A Militia is a MILITARY FORCE. It's a military.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is the entomology of the word in case you didn't already try to look this up:

    Militia derives from Latin roots:

    miles /miːles/ : SOLDIER[5]
    -itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being[6][7]
    militia /mil:iːtia/: MILITARY SERVICE[5]

    IE, a MILITARY FORCE. A MILITARY

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't understand why you seem so upset. I was merely clarifying that a militia is not an army.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A militia is a military, Breanna

      Delete
    2. LOL before I know it you're going say a navy isn't a military because it's not an army LOL

      Delete
    3. A militia is an army but an army is not a militia.

      Delete
    4. Oh wow, Breanna do you know what you're saying? You're statement is so ridicules I don't know what to say about it, except for the fact that a militia is a military.

      You don't seem to grasp the concept that a military is a militia, and that an army is a military. They are the same thing, you just keep trying to use the word 'army' as if it's different from a military when it is not.

      A militia is a military which includes National Guard, Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force. How can you say that the army is not a part of the military? And Reno's comment is spot on here. Would you say that a Navy is not a military because it's not an army? That doesn't make any sense...

      Delete
    5. Opps! My bad, I didn't realize that wasn't Breanna! Sorry about that. My comment is for the person who said a militia is an army but an army is not a militia.

      Delete
    6. "A militia is an army but an army is not a militia."

      What the hell? That doesn't even make any sense LOL.

      That's like saying a fruit is a banana but a banana isn't a fruit.

      Delete
    7. No, it's like saying a banana is a fruit, but a fruit is not a banana. =)

      Delete
  7. The word militia dates back to at least 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A militia can be a lot of things. It doesn't necessarily mean it's an army. A militia can be a navy force, or an air force. When I was a kid I was in the Young Air Defense Guard. It was run by officers and enlisted men from the Air Force and was considered a militia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, apparently I've touched a nerve. I have no idea how you got to have such an anger problem, but get it under control. Until then, I'll let you live in your little bubble without any dissenting opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little bubble world? Maybe you should break the bubble you're in. You're the one that doesn't seem to like dissenting opinions.

      Delete
    2. All dissenting opinions aside, the fact remains that a militia is a military force. ROTC programs in high schools are run by the military and considered a militia. It doesn't matter whether you're in Army ROTC, Navy ROTC, or Marine ROTC, they are all still run by the military itself and are militias.

      Delete
  10. LOL, Breanna you talk about anger problems and you were the one who got angry when I said we need to focus more on mental health. Who actually has the anger problem here?

    I can use your logic against you on this one. You say that since you are mentally ill that you know more about the issues of mental health. Well I tried to join the military I've studied the military ever since I was in high school you know that. So how is it that you can know more about mental illness than I but I can't know more about the military than you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was going to point that out, actually. Breanna acts as though she knows everything, but has she actually tried to join the National Guard or any other type of military branch? Technically the National Guard is in fact a branch of the military, it is also known as a militia.

    No one is getting angry with you, Breanna. But it is frustrating to read your comments about how you're a "mental health expert" and how upset you were with Reno for the comments he made, then turn around and act as though Reno is upset with you're view of what a militia is or isn't.

    Reno, what branch did you try for? Why did you not go for it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Navy. Scored 83 on my ASVAP, but when I went back to the MEPS to sign my paper work and get my rate they told me I would have to go in as an Non-designated seaman. I heard horror stories about Non-des seaman so I told them to give me a call when they had something else available. Needless to say my recruiter was not happy with me turning it down, but with my ASVAP scores I should have been given the option for a better rate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should have just went for it anyway. I've heard that the people that go in with no rate do get treated like shit, but a lot of them can actually gain their rate two years into servicing when one opens up. Not a bad thing, but I see your reasoning.

      Delete
  13. Two important points to make: I was not arguing about military knowledge; I was helping correct a grammatical error in order to HELP you, but apparently you have your head so far up your ass you can't recognize it when someone's trying to be helpful.

    Secondly, it is apparent now that one cannot say that they've worked in the psychological field enough to overcome the fact that they have a mental disability. Apparently my achievements are not as important as the obstacles that need to be overcome for those achievements to be made real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not a grammatical error Breanna. Maybe you're the one with her head up her ass to not be able to see that. Jeff made a great comment above saying the a militia is a military. It is a military force that is operated by the military of the United States government. Saying that an army isn't a militia is just like saying that the Navy isn't a branch of the military because the Navy operates on sea and not on land, and thus is not a military!

      Delete
    2. Oh gosh, back on the mental heath issue> Oh woe is you...

      Delete
  14. According to the dictionary, even the one that you cited, it is. I'm not saying that your arguments are invalid; nowhere have I said that at all. Languages evolve over time, and if you're going to use a word in a context that it does not actually mean in the modern lexicon, then you need to make it clear that that is what you are doing, otherwise your readers will be confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you are saying my argument is invalid. You said it in your very first comment, "You seem to use the terms "militia" interchangeably with "military". They aren't the same thing." When they are in fact the same thing.

      Delete
    2. mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
      noun
      1.
      a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
      2.
      a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
      3.
      all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
      4.
      a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
      Origin:
      1580–90; < Latin mīlitia soldiery, equivalent to mīlit- (stem of mīles ) soldier + -ia -ia

      ar·my [ahr-mee] Show IPA
      noun, plural ar·mies.
      1.
      the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.
      2.
      (in large military land forces) a unit consisting typically of two or more corps and a headquarters.
      3.
      a large body of persons trained and armed for war.
      4.
      any body of persons organized for any purpose: an army of census takers.
      5.
      a very large number or group of something; a great multitude; a host: the army of the unemployed.

      I admit that I made a mistake in my original comment and said "military" when I meant "army", but my point still stands: the two are not the same thing.

      Delete
    3. Oh gosh, here we go.

      The two are the same, kid! An Army is a military!

      You're trying to say that an army can also mean a large group or body of people that are not in the military when we aren't talking about that at all. We are talking about the military and how it is a militia and how an army comprises the military forces of a nation. Thus the Army of a nation is also a militia!

      You said that blog may confuse readers, but the only one it has seemed to confuse is you, because you don't understand that Reno is talking about the military forces of a country, not a large body of people that organize for any other reason.

      A militia is a military

      Delete
    4. ...And a military is an Army. <.<

      Delete
    5. I don't get it. How can a an Army and a Militia not be the same thing? "A body of citizens enrolled for military service" and "the military forces of a nation" are the same thing. I mean what do you think the military is comprised of? Because according to your comment up there an army is not a body of citizens enrolled for military service when it's exactly that.

      Delete
    6. All the definitions above specifically describe a militia as being a civilian group as opposed to professional soldiers. Note that paramilitary is not the same as military. Paramilitary, according to the same dictionary, is a supplemental force in support of the military.

      Again, Mike, I'm not countering ANY of the arguments in your blog. I don't understand why you are so upset about this. I'm merely pointing out that the British army was specifically NOT a militia by the modern definition of the word.

      Also, I dislike that you can't keep your own readers from behaving rudely toward another reader. I used to think you valued open discussion, but it seems clear to me you condone rudeness as long as it is in support of you. That's not a very good way to promote open discussion of anything.

      Delete
  15. Oh my God, Breanna. The only reader here is confused is you, buddy.

    I need to step out for a smoke or go shopping or something, because these comments by you are just weird and I feel as if my IQ just went down a few points from reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. According to Wikipedia a Militia is an irregular military or a paramilitary. An irregular military is a non-standard military. A paramilitary is a military-esque force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military. So yes...a militia is a type of military.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is a very interesting debate. I can see where Breanna's point, vaguely though. An army can mean many things like, "the army of people at the welfare office" or "the army of people rushed into walmart on black friday."

    But the context in which it is being used in this blog is meant to describe the military. I don't see how that can be confusing given the fact that we are talking about militias and militaries.

    I was never in ROTC or the military, but I know what they are and I do know that during WWII the first people who were "drafted" to go to war were those in the militias. Those young men who were similar programs back then were conscripted into the military because they were in fact part of the military in some way or another.

    This kind of talk is confusing in the sense that Breanna is actually twisting the words here a bit. Citizens join the army of a nation, and that's what we're talking about. Citizens join a militia, which is part of the national defense of a country, thus it is a part of the military.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for saying that, but I never meant it like that. I was actually just referring to the fact that he described the British army as a militia, which is grammatically incorrect. I had no intention of twisting words, merely clarifying existing ones, but you make a good point: such is the system of laws we have in the US. That's why we have lawyers.

      Delete
  18. YO SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!!!! GUNS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF OF CHILDRENS DEATHS! HOW DARE YOU INVOKE AN OUTDATED ARCHAIC AMENDMENT THAT HAS NO GRONDS IN FUTRE TIMES!!! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT WE NEED GUNS TO REVOLT AGAINST THIS GREAT COUNTRY! YO MAKE ME SICK RENO! I HOPE GUN CONTROL LAWS AREN:"T PASSED SO YOURE KIDS GET SHOT IN SCHOOL!!!!!! WE"LLKL SEE WHAT YOU THINK THEN ASSHOLE!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aneurisms from stupid blog comments is the second leading cause. Congratulations on becoming a child mass murderer.

      Delete
    2. Wow...not sure if you're serious or just being a sarcastic troll... <.<

      Delete
    3. LOL, you want to talk about the Bill of Rights as though it's archaic I can only imagine what you think of free speech, free press, and emancipation. Are those archaic and out of date amendments as well?

      Delete
    4. Hold on here. You can't bring free speech into this argument because it doesn't belong there. The founding fathers escaped Great Britain because they couldn't have free speech or any of that. But with the second amendment there is no way the founding fathers and framers of this country could ever possibly imagine how advanced and dangerous guns would get. If they were here now they would say that its crazy and should be revised.

      Delete
    5. What the...?

      Sounds like the Republican argument to things like free speech. "Oh, well the found fathers wanted us to have free speech but they could have never possibly believed this stuff would happen."

      The founding fathers were the smartest men of their time and you think they didn't have the foresight to think that technology wouldn't evolve?

      Delete
  19. OK, brain hurts. Times to play some violent video games. :)

    ReplyDelete

Type comments here...