From Our Cold Dead Hands

Posted: February 2, 2013 by GeeOhPeeved in Current events, Gun Control, Political Philosophy
Tags: , ,

Immediately following any tragedy involving gun violence, there is almost always a renewed push by the left to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizenry.  Now, as honesty would work against them (and is a foreign concept to the movers and shakers on the left anyways) rights-restricting gun legislation and the propaganda used to ease it’s way has to be carefully worded.   Don’t say you want to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens, say that we need to get guns off the street so we can all feel safer.  Don’t say that those in power should decide who can and cannot exercise their basic and Constitutionally protected rights, say that licenses and permits are necessary to make sure ‘only the right people’ have access to guns (again, don’t worry what qualifies one as the “right” sort, that’s none of your concern).

What irritates me most about those who swallow the gun-grabber nonsense is that they’re basing their decisions on a series of flawed assumptions.  Goadmin over at Gun Owners of America recently posted a great list of the top 10 fallacious assumptions made by those who support increased gun control measures:

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
  4. The government will never turn on its people
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
  9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Let’s go through these one at a time, shall we?

1.  The Second Amendment is about hunting.

What thinking person really believes that a nation who had just finished a war in which they revolted against their previous government included the right to bear arms in order to make sure people were allowed to hunt.  This is one of those arguments that is too ridiculous to be believed.  If you ever find yourself debating someone who tries to make this point, either they’re so dishonest as to make the debate nearly pointless, or it’s time to put on the kid gloves so you don’t overburden their simple little minds.

2.  The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had.

This is something you’ll hear when people try to argue against “assault weapons” and machine guns, as opposed to firearms in general.  The problem being that the concept of a rifle capable of automatic fire wasn’t something the Continental Congress could never have imagined, as Joseph Belton had approached them with his plans for an automatic flintlock rifle.  Going further, there was no sweeping gun control legislation until 1934, 73 years after the invention of the Gatling gun.  The seeming failure to restrict certain types of arms under the Second Amendment, then, surely wasn’t because they couldn’t fathom the idea of large capacity weapons with a high rate of fire.

3.  Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
.

Short answer?  Chicago and Washington D.C.  Want more?  Look at Mexico’s gun laws, and ask how well those are working out for them.  The same people who argue for legalization of certain drugs on the grounds that people will find a way to get them regardless of their illegality are, surprisingly often, the same people who claim that banning guns will keep us safe.

4.  The government will never turn on it’s people.

…said the complacent segment of the populace of every dictatorship in history, prior to said dictator’s rise to power.  Even if you say it’s a matter of “if, not when,” listen to the Boy Scouts-  “always be prepared.”

5.  The police are enough to keep you safe.

Sure, except for when they aren’t.  Imagine if somebody were to break into your home with the intention of harming you and your family-  what are the odds that the police will get there in time?  The simple fact is that with the majority of violent crime, the act is over by the time the police arrive.  The possibility that the police MIGHT, at some later date, find the perpetrator doesn’t leave you any less robbed, raped, or murdered.  Having a gun at your side, however, can greatly decrease your odds of having to suffer any of the aforementioned tragedies in the first place.

6.  Criminals will follow gun laws.

Again, Chicago, D.C., Mexico.  Something painfully naive in the assumption that a person who is willing to knowingly violate the law will change their minds because they’d break one more law.

7.  Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed.

Any legislation obstructing a citizen’s Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional on the face of it.  Now, if someone was to argue in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, they’d have an argument…granted if any such effort succeeded, I expect you’d see a rather large segment of the citizenry rise up and take their rights back.

8.  Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it.

Yet again, Chicago, D.C., Mexico…

9.  Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t.

This would be valid only if you assumed that the police could be relied on at all times to keep you safe, and I’ve already pointed out that that just isn’t the case.

10.  Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny.

Which is why we still live under British rule.  Oh, wait…

Would the casualty list be as long if there had been an armed civilian among the victims of Newtown, Aurora Columbine, or any of the other high-profile mass shootings being used to scare Americans into surrendering their arms?

Image

The argument for retaining our arms for the sake of personal defense is a strong one, but the fact remains that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to afford the citizenry the ability to fight off an oppressive tyrannical government.  Given the rapid expansion of government power in the last century, and specifically the last twenty years, is now really the time for us lay down our arms?  Are you certain that there’s no point in the future in which our descendants will need to fight off some brutal totalitarian regime?  Don’t be so quick to give up your rights, America, and don’t trust anyone who would try to take them from you.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. #1 – lolz. Hunting, sure, that’s the ticket!
    #4 – People call Americans “paranoid” that we’d assume the government could turn on its people. I point out that it’s not paranoia, its making the very notion of a government takeover unthinkable. Even better.
    #5 – As the saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”
    #8 – From what I’ve gathered from the hysterical left, gun control will work better when NOBODY can have guns, not just non-criminals. Of course, they’re silent when the media reports things like “Georgia middle school shooter disarmed by armed security guard,” or even things like “Whoops! Sandy Hook shooter actually didn’t use automatic weaponry!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s