Thursday, February 28, 2008

why punks should support the second ammendment

Often times people make decisions based on the goodness in their heart. They want solutions that lead towards their ideal world. This is a pure, and beautiful intention. However, the real world is not easy, its a very hard life. Things happen which are unfortunate, and sometimes to good people.

This is something we know. Our founders preserved our right to bear arms in hopes that when the government became persecutive, an armed populace would serve as a deterrant against severe actions of tyranny. They never understood how powerful our Federal Military might one day become, and how effectively that organizations like the FBI, COINTELPRO, and HOMELAND SECURITY could eliminate our ability to organize a militia. Our representative republic only works as a system of checks and balances, and the local militia is a check and balance against police and military corruption. Day-by-Day we let the progressives in the media and the big government camp take away these rights from us, claiming that they make us less safe.

When you take away weapons rights from law abiding citizens, that means the only people who will carry a weapon are people who do not mind violating the law. The idea that someone will not kill a police officer or your daughter or son because the weapon he would be using is considered contraband is a logical fallacy. Murder is illegal, and a far more serious violation, so for them to illegally acquire a gun is by no means a deterrant from them committing the crime. In fact, it transfers wealth from a private gun manufacturer, who makes safe and effective guns, to a black market, who charges a higher markup, and uses this money to build a criminal enterprise, including gangs, who may well kill your children with a stray bullet in a shooting or a robbery.

The Center for Disease Control did a study on the effectiveness of gun regulations on reducing death by gun accident, crime, suicide, and any other health risk associated with firearms usage and found that it had no sufficient relationship with an increase in safety.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

You may reference that study there yourself. The CDC is one of my favorite resources for determining things like the rate of spread of infectious disease and I think they would be a more effective enterprise if they could operate privately and receive funding for their reports from the medical community! I would even sign up for a monthly fee to read their reports, because it is a great resource.

However, I digress, most Republican bobblehead types, the ones that get elected and stand for less than the "fringe" ones that actually stand for conservative type issues, defend gun rights for hunters. Organizations like the National Rifle Association compromise with New Dealers and big government Statists left and right to take away our right to cast off wicked government and be a first line of defense against violent crime. Did you know they recently passed a law that if an Iraq War Veteran comes home from the war with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, he is no longer allowed his constitutional right to bear arms? What an insult to someone who served our nation, and sacrificed his life, and probably a limb or two to ensure our ability to walk around in a safe and free street.

Now if a crook sneaks into his home into the dead of the night, he can't even legally own a firearm to defend himself. He must instead rely on big government to protect him, the same one that somehow blew truckloads of money on Katrina yet left the place in a total shambles.

Mike Huckabee would tell you that gun control is about a man's right to hunt a deer. This is wrong. This attitude is an attitude of compromise. The right to bear arms is there to cast off wicked government, to deter military occupation, to help in an invasion on our soil by a foreign nation, and to act as a first line of defense against crime. The 10 minute to an hour response time of the local police is not sufficient to defend your family from a murderer, but the 600 feet per second response time of a bullet definately is.

Notice that all the school shootings and other major mass murder events happen at places where guns are prohibited? Murderers love the monopoly on firearms that Big Government Statists offer them... and the Statists love the shooting events. It allows them to tear at your heart strings and get you to vote for more gun legislation.

Let's be realistic, is the problem at Virginia Tech that there was 1 gun there that shouldn't have been there? or was the true problem that there were 62 guns that were NOT there. How could one man fight an entire school building full of people, killing half and injuring most all by himself? Only because he had a monopoly on the weapon involved.

Don't let the statists take away the one thing that keeps a Military Occupation in America off the table.

It is your right, and your responsibility to protect this right, both in your State and Federal Constitution.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

gun control does not necessarily mean "strip the nation of guns completely". just a thought.
if there's anything we have to brag about in this country, its that we have the highest gun crime rate in the entire world.
i think the biggest reason as to why our gun crime rate is so fucked, isn't the amount of guns, but the social environments (it's a damn vicious cycle) and individual upbringings that make us who we are.
society dictates so much more than we care to notice.
and who's to say somebody else with a lifetime of psychological problems wouldn't have snapped and picked up one of the hypothetical 62 guns you spoke of?
we need to teach our children a little more understanding to prevent such horrors. it's not about making a college an arsenal.

Shawn said...

I agree completely. If one person does snap, and goes off on inocent people, then those people need to protect themselves. If we ban guns, then that one person is still going to find a way to get that gun. But the victims won't have a gun on them, so we'll have the same problems.

Anonymous said...

the fact that America has the highest gun crime rate in the entire world is a semantic, corrupt fact. You can't say that Europe has lower gun crime rates, because, during the last 100 years they had so many absurd wars on their land that make America's gun violence look like child's play.

the death toll to gun violence in every other nation in the world is MUCH higher than that of the U.S. if you consider wars on their land a type of gun violence. a lack of an ability to prevent gun violence by having weaponry to defend oneself allows this other form of "non-criminal" gun violence.

Dan said...

The real problem isn't the guns or people owning them. It's the government acting like our parents, telling us that we don't know what's good for us; that our own children aren't going to be safe without laws protecting them. Laws that don't allow a parent the ability to truly parent.

Nobody is created equally, but everybody has equal rights. This fact is blurred and people are being convinced that our population is purely a demographic. Obama has the black vote and Hillary has the female vote. Where's the individuality?

My point in this is that the government forcing gun control is just one of their ways of saying that we don't know how to take care of ourselves.

Proper gun control is the teaching of the safe ways to handle a firearm, and when it's appropriate to use it.

sorry for the rant

Barry Donegan said...

the state technically owns your children.

we have not left martial law since the civil war.

Geordie said...

I'm from Australia and I like getting beaten up rather than shot. More guns = easier to get guns = more people get shot.

Here is what happened in Australia following gun laws:
Guns killed more than 5000 people in Australia in the past decade. Nine out of 10 of the victims were male and most of them killed themselves (I know what you are gonna say to this but read on, the drop in deaths is by no means limited to suicide).

The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology released yesterday found that the number of deaths caused by guns each year dropped to 333 in 2001 from 629 in 1991.

The biggest single form of firearm death was suicide, accounting for 3930 fatalities out of a total of 5083 studied. The number fell from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001.

Men were the victims of 4586 firearm deaths, women were victims of 497 - 261 of which were recorded as homicide.

Homicides dropped to 47 in 2001 from 84 in 1991, accidental deaths dropped to 18 from 29, while other forms of firearm deaths slipped to seven from 11.

The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.

After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

In 1996, 521 people died from gun-inflicted wounds, while in 1997 this dropped to 437.

State and federal governments agreed in late 2002 on new laws aimed at restricting access to handguns. Last July import controls were increased.

Hunting rifles consistently accounted for the largest number of deaths, followed by shotguns, while the use of handguns has increased. The number of times a hunting rifle was implicated in a death dropped to 76 in 2001 from 282 in 1991. Shotgun deaths dropped from 133 to 54 but handgun deaths increased from 29 in 1991 to 49 in 2001.

Destroying most of the guns might not be the right way to go for America, due to various differences with Australia but have you considered that the inability of a culture to demilitarize might be due to the militious nature of its constitution in the first place?

Guns are bad news m'kay, good luck getting rid of all the spooks though!