I have been unsure how to proceed with this topic of gun control. I think all the arguments that can be made for or against it have been made and we’re now preaching to our own choir. As you are aware, I’m strongly against gun control. Our rights, according to the constitution, shall not be infringed. It worries me when our government begins to say that our rights should be curbed for our own good, and so they begin to chip away at them. You can have a gun, but not a large or scary-looking gun, and you may only have 7 bullets at a time. You may speak, but not in this area, or about this thing, or in this hateful tone. You may smoke, but not here, and your drinks may be only this large, and your children can only attend this school.
Call me paranoid, but this slow erosion of our rights to arms, speech, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be portending greater loss of individual liberty down the road. Perhaps we will only be allowed to own guns that are the minimum for self-defense, say a .380 pistol. What happens when our speech no longer includes forums such as blogs and internet chat rooms? In the interest of doing what’s “best” for you, you may well lose the right of self-determination to your government.
“Oh, that’s silly. our government isn’t going to keep us off the internet.” Really? What’s stopping them? You may not know this, but your speech is already suspect under the guise of “hate crimes.” When in the history of the world has crime been compassionate? Yet champions of big government upheld minority groups who felt they’d been bullied and used that to justify policing speech. You think the internet is one big free playground, but can you then explain how information is kept from citizens in communist China? No? I guess the internet isn’t as unfettered as you imagined.
“But this is America, that’s not going to happen here.” This trusting and childlike argument is about as effective at keeping your government from controlling you as a pillow fight would be. You seem to forget that our rights are intended to keep us free from our government. You only need a small pistol for self-defense? What about when your home invader is wearing a military uniform and carrying a fully automatic machine gun? Do you think any tyrannical government that subverted the will of the people gave its citizens a heads up that they might like more power and intended to take it? Of course not. They need you docile. They need you unconcerned. They need you to help them take power by being afraid to live without their benevolent protection that you will pay for by force if necessary. Doubt me? Try not paying your taxes and see how long you own anything. You are being asked to surrender your right to protect yourself by paying inept and often corrupt leaders to handle that job for you. Now run along and watch those Kardashians! Let the grown-ups decide how many police officers your area needs. We promise to try to get to you before the forensic evidence is corrupted. Oh, you thought we’d save you? Yeah… we aren’t obligated to protect you. Sorry.
Shouldn’t you be wondering why your government feels the need to be more powerfully armed than you?
Abandoning what some consider a paranoid argument based on anti-government rhetoric, let’s consider for a moment what gun control means to us outside of a hypothetical tyrannical power grab.
In the same week that Obama gave his speech on gun control and signed his executive orders in front of his child props, using Sandy Hook as his justification for action, my husband’s brother was shot and killed. I was worried at first that some of the family would buy into the gun control argument after such a personal tragedy, but I only heard questions like “Why didn’t he have a gun on him?” and “Why was he in such a dangerous city.. alone?”
You see, my husband, his brothers, and his friends used to work on the road, going from one construction job to another. They always traveled together through dangerous cities, and they always carried a weapon. They had to. As soon as they’d roll into town for a job, the local riffraff would target them. These dregs of society, rather than getting an honest job themselves, would simply wait until the construction workers had their first paycheck. Then, this scum would try to sell them items they’d stolen from other people or they’d simply rob them. Every city, town, and rural community has these criminal societal leeches. My husband’s friend actually got back home to his rural community before he was robbed and had his throat cut. My husband’s brother was robbed and shot in a city known for its criminal element while between home and work. It doesn’t matter where you live, travel, or work, there are always going to be people who would rather take what you have, even your life, than work for their own.
Cities where liberals have done their worst through policies which were supposed to increase growth, education, and opportunity, are the most heavily populated areas and provide the most criminal activity. Don’t believe me? Look at Detroit and Chicago. That is what a statist utopia looks like. Now consider that the same politicians who would champion the work done in those cities also want to disarm you. Feel safe yet?
“Background checks would keep criminals from getting guns. We need common sense control!” I just love these arguments that assume that CRIMINALS WILL FOLLOW LAWS. That’s just precious. You sweet, innocent, child… Chicago is a gun free zone. You honestly think laws are going to keep criminals from committing crime?! Oh sure, our laws against rape, theft, and murder have practically made those crimes obsolete…
Here’s the truth: criminals will never have to worry about background checks, registration, or permits. They have already proven that they are unconcerned with existing laws, what could possibly make them consider abiding by any other laws? Especially if those laws would hinder their criminal activities? Gun control only serves to bind the hands of the law-abiding citizens whose only concern is to protect themselves from the criminals in this country.
“Well you just hate children, because the guns used at Sandy Hook were legal! Guns should be outlawed!” Right. Again, crimes against murder and theft didn’t stop the psycho killer who got his jollies by targeting children. In fact, the weapon is irrelevant. Bombs have been built by killers who had no regard for law, and resulted in a higher death toll. Do you know what could have saved those children at Sandy Hook? Armed faculty or guards. That psycho might have killed one or two people but he wouldn’t have lived long enough to deprive all those families of their children. A school shooter was stopped in Pearl, MS because the assistant principal had a gun. The Aurora shooter passed over other theaters in his quest to find a place that was “gun-free”, meaning of course “full of helpless victims.”
I don’t know how else to state this: people who have every intent to break existing law and do harm to innocent people will not be stopped by laws that limit the innocent from protecting themselves. The only loser in the gun control scenario are those who need the protection.
Having said all that, I think the people in these videos make an excellent case.