Getting a Big Bang Out of the Gun Nonsense…

As usual, a murderous sociopath, the latest in probably a googolplex of predecessors along this line, has triggered, not a dialog re murderous sociopaths but instead, hand-wringing over some of his chosen tools. The Aurora Joker shot his victims, though he seems to have carried a machete as backup.

Many, many more die by car; we address the drivers responsible, we don’t scream for limiting or banning cars. Silence re machetes, too. “But killing is the only use for a gun!” keeps echoing in the empty cavern of the winds that passes for debate these days. A lie, of course; nobody is screaming to deprive citizens of bows and arrows are they? Both guns and bows are shooting devices with multiple uses; let’s try to stay real here. And anyway, don’t talk of a gun ban to solve anything until you can make a drug ban stick.

We used to lock up our nuts; that became expensive so we turned them loose, hoping they’d take their meds. Maybe we should revisit that decision. Research among prisoners has recently shown that sociopathic criminals in the prison population have a different brain configuration than do the more normal ones. It shows up on brain scans. Seems to me, that screams for investigation. Nothing like these from the Nervous Nellies, though; just screaming louder: “Take away their guns!” Yeah, they’ll be satisfied with ‘control’ they won’t take them completely away. Look, if you can’t at least be honest, why are we even talking? They want them gone; they’ll take partial steps if they have to and keep on from there. We both know that; let’s not kid around.

That Sacred Second Amendment pasted to the foreheads of the Gun Crowd isn’t what many are told, either; let’s have honesty on that, too. The Founders took guns for granted. Some places required citizens to have them; calling out the militia wasn’t funny, then. And that’s a big part of the Second Amendment; the government needed household guns for security. And no, that wasn’t the only reason for the Amendment; the Founders wrote in so many words that an armed citizenry was needed to head off tyrannical government. You may recall that the Declaration of Independence claims for us the right to change or replace our government when necessary; that’s hardly advice for disarmed citizens is it? Which is one reason the gun-phobic Left avoids and trashes the Declaration of Independence.

But as no less than Righteous Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out: The Second Amendment doesn’t preclude government regulation of guns. That was pretty common in fact, back in the day. Just as free speech doesn’t allow yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the right to keep guns has limits, too.

Hypocrites of Left and Right deplore each other’s extremism, pleading for fair-mindedness by which they mean: Do it my way! Which is when real world solutions to any of these problems go up in smoke. You have to get a big bang out of it; it’s pretty funny, really…except of course, for all the dead people. The Joker was the problem in Aurora, not his guns. He could, with his tear gas, have offed his 12 with his machete or an axe if inclined. Time to ban axes, maybe?

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Declaration of Independence, Domestic Policy, Guns, Hunters, Liberty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Getting a Big Bang Out of the Gun Nonsense…

  1. Nor did the 2nd amendment limit the style of arms. The only limit was that they were to be borne (to carry or bear). The 2nd amendment did not include such things as cannon or launched rocket bombs in the 2nd amendment, that was left to the State Militia to provide these items. The founders knew arms were always in an evolutionary state thus becoming a more efficient and accurate weapon. Even through WWll the population was allowed to keep the guns they used in the service. ( except machine guns as private ownership were severely restricted due Mob crime). In Viet Nam privately owned shotguns were permitted. It wasn’t until the “Peace movement” that gun control became part of the lefts agenda. They understood that in order to control a people, the govt must first remove their guns.

    • jackcurtis says:

      Exactly so and thanks; I hadn’t known some of that. Seems to me, the whole thing may become moot before long as military tech turns our civilian weapons into toys by comparison…

      • Poland in WWll proved that even good old fashioned low tech arms (Molotov cocktails) could stymie a well armed attacker. I tell folks who buy guns for survival/personal protection, not to overlook a cross bow or good archery set.

  2. --Rick says:

    From the Declaration of Independence

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–”

    Without arms, how are the people supposed to fulfill their duty to throw off an abusive government that habitually usurps the individual rights of its citizens and moves ever closer to tyrannical despotism? Are we to use paper clips, homemade tomahawks or slingshots and play the role of David against Goliath? Or are we to have sufficient arms to have a chance at fulfilling this duty through victory against a military force? The Bill of Rights was something originally opposed, but ultimately placed into the Constitution as further assurance that each of these rights would not be reduced or eliminated. The 2nd Amendment is there for a purpose and when viewed in the context of the Declaration of Independence, the context, in my view, is clear.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s