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.
You seem to use the terms "militia" interchangeably with "military". They aren't the same thing.
ReplyDeleteA militia. Def: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. MILITARY FORCE. It's a fucking military.
ReplyDeleteYes, 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteHere is the entomology of the word in case you didn't already try to look this up:
ReplyDeleteMilitia 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
I don't understand why you seem so upset. I was merely clarifying that a militia is not an army.
ReplyDeleteA militia is a military, Breanna
DeleteLOL before I know it you're going say a navy isn't a military because it's not an army LOL
DeleteA militia is an army but an army is not a militia.
DeleteOh 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.
DeleteYou 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...
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"A militia is an army but an army is not a militia."
DeleteWhat 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.
No, it's like saying a banana is a fruit, but a fruit is not a banana. =)
Delete*Inset thumbs up here*
DeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
ReplyDeleteOkay, 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.
ReplyDeleteLittle bubble world? Maybe you should break the bubble you're in. You're the one that doesn't seem to like dissenting opinions.
DeleteAll 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.
DeleteLOL, 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?
ReplyDeleteI 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteNo 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
DeleteTwo 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.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, 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.
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!
DeleteOh gosh, back on the mental heath issue> Oh woe is you...
DeleteAccording 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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
Deletemi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
Deletenoun
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.
Oh gosh, here we go.
DeleteThe 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
...And a military is an Army. <.<
DeleteI 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.
DeleteAll 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.
DeleteAgain, 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.
Oh my God, Breanna. The only reader here is confused is you, buddy.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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."
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
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.
DeleteYO 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!!!
ReplyDeleteAneurisms from stupid blog comments is the second leading cause. Congratulations on becoming a child mass murderer.
DeleteWow...not sure if you're serious or just being a sarcastic troll... <.<
DeleteLOL, 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?
DeleteHold 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.
DeleteWhat the...?
DeleteSounds 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?
OK, brain hurts. Times to play some violent video games. :)
ReplyDelete