World history is littered with armed conflict. From the Spartans to the IDF, mankind has been at war with itself. It is in the human genome that otherwise civil men turn hostile in defense of ideas, whether they be religious in nature, defensive in liberty, or supportive in tyranny. For thousands of years men have been killing each other with sticks, stones, fists, poisons, bombs, knives, and yes, the venerable firearm. In the defense of liberty, the firearm is a tool of justice to fight oppression regardless of the physical size or power of the enemy. In the hands of the persecuted, the firearm is a tool to defend man's God given right to worship as he sees fit. In the hands of dictators and out of the hands of his subjects, the firearm is a tool of obedience. Criminal elements around the world have taken advantage of mankind's tools and firearms are no different. In the hands of a psychopath, the firearm is a tool of death, obeying the will of the evil that controls it. It has made a fresh appearance into the court of public opinion, kneeling to await its fate from well-meaning do-gooders, closet communists, and snake oil politicians. (Please forgive the redundancy) In the wake of a madman's rampage it is again the firearm on trial, not the lunatic guilty of 27 counts of murder. Murder always equates to senseless loss, but it salts the wound to know that the vast majority of victims at Sandy Hook Elementary were small children. Children that were incapable of understanding the dark forces of nature that compel the mentally deranged to commit acts of first degree murder. My heart breaks every time I hear of another six year old's funeral. It really does. But the rampant dishonesty that has impregnated the news cycle mustn't go unchecked. The fact that private ownership of firearms had nothing to do with what unfolded last Friday morning needs to be the starting point of the conversation, not its antithesis.
Some may say that my argument so far is ludicrous. And that is my point. We have slid so far in this great nation that we cringe over the mention of firearms. No doubt about it, even before the massacre in Connecticut, a large swath of people were deathly afraid of firearms. So much so, in fact, that the mere sight of one would prompt the brain's reaction to seek help in some cases. (AKA Call the police.) We have become so backwards in our thinking of who's responsible for our safety that is the norm for people to believe that the police have a duty to protect them when, in fact, they don't. The Supreme Court has even said as much. So with that in mind, take a moment to ask yourself "Who is responsible for my safety?" Think about that for a minute. We know it's not the police. So when you're out for an evening jog and are accosted by the criminal element, what is your plan? Who is responsible for protecting you? If your front door is kicked in the middle of night by a group of jones'ing meth heads thinking of nothing but their next fix, what do you do? Who is responsible for your family's safety? Is your belief in banning all guns so strong that you're willing to let your family be slaughtered? Because here's a reality check, Jack: Violent criminals aren't going anywhere. Even without firearms, does your pencil-pushing pansy ass have the moxy to do hand combat with a felon who has spent the last ten years shankin' fools in the state pen? Even if you did, do you think you're going to win that fight? That's the beauty of a tool like a firearm. It equalizes all parties involved. A 250lb rapist is no match for a 120 lb woman.....armed with a .357 Magnum. If you like the idea of a dead rapist on your floor better than a living one in your bed, perhaps you should clear your mind, breathe, and realize that the firearm is not the hand of the devil himself, it is, always has been, and will always be a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
The United States is unique insofar as our greatly revered second amendment. A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those glorious words enshrined forever into our republic. God bless the founders of this country for having the knowledge that someday a Cuntasaurus Rex like Michael Bloomberg would open the ass on his shoulders, showering crowds with a battery of septic sludge from the bowels of Moonbatland. This sludge has permeated the weak minds of the ignorant and called them to "action." If it weren't for the second amendment, this legion of pussytards would have already turned us into slaves, kneeling and begging for protection from the government. I don't know about you, but I'll be a son of a bitch if I will ever kneel and beg for protection that I am fully capable of providing myself. You see, contrary to the barrage of dumb ass comments from social media, the second amendment isn't even about self defense. Self defense is a human right, a natural right if you will. If in danger, regardless of whatever "law" some chumsucker dreamed up, you're going to defend yourself. Nope, that's not what the second amendment is about. Hunting! That's it! A hunter doesn't need a 30 round "clip" to shoot a deer. You're right, a 30 round "clip" is a bit of an overkill. So is a 30 round magazine. Which is one of the reasons why I've never once, in all the time I've been in the outdoors, seen a hunter take an assault rifle in the woods. An AR-15? For hunting? Good grief, you fucking retards. You think I'm going to fire a 5.56 at a wild boar? Fuck no I'm not! I'm going to fire something far more powerful that has much greater range. But curiously, you idiots have no problem with my 30.06 or 7mm Mag. That's probably because you haven't the slightest fucking clue what in the hell you're talking about. But I digress. So if the second amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense, then why is it there? That's the million dollar question. But the million dollar question has a 57 cent answer because of its simplicity. The reason the second amendment was added to the bill of rights was so that the citizens of this country could have the means to defend themselves from tyranny. All of the hunting and self-defense arguments are secondary to the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms. The citizens' right to keep and bear arms encompasses the tools necessary to defend themselves against their own government. That's what AR-15s are for. That's what high capacity magazines are for. You're not going to last very long against a government assault team with a fucking Red Rider. We, the people, have enshrined in our constitution, the right to have sufficient arms to repel tyranny. So for those of you who believe the second amendment only refers to muskets, try and use more than three brain cells and do some research. If AR-15s were around in 1775, you can bet your woolen stockings that our boys would have had hard-ons while wasting red coats with them. For douche application devices like Piers Morgan, I know that's a hard concept to grasp, but if he thinks for one minute that our founders would have been cold to the idea of 30 round magazines then perhaps he should take a Virgin flight back to the motherland to do some more research before spewing his leftist eurotrash dogma.
It's sad really that a tool gets blamed for what man does. And no doubt, the Messiah will be on a non stop leftist acid trip until Congress passes some kind of new "ban" or "law." It's reactionary to the left. Like Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." But no law short of a complete ban on firearms will work. That's simply not going to happen. Whatever law that is cooked up will serve only to hamper the law-abiding citizen. Do you think for one minute that the flow of money and weapons will stop from Mexico if a complete ban is implemented? Nope. You know deep down that gun violence will never stop. It can only be mitigated by citizens willing to stand and shoot back. Every time something like this happens, Sarah Brady gets moist thinking about how she can magically stop gun violence. She is incapable of rational thinking because she is faithfully committed to the unattainable. Her every thought works from the premise of guns are bad so having a reasonable discussion with her or her ilk will prove to be fruitless. As far as the NRA remaining silent, good for them. It would be woefully inappropriate for them to be making public statements, even if it's just to defend themselves. Just as it's woefully inappropriate for the left to be marching around with cute signs trying to disarm everyone. But in today's media, that's ok. The left shits roses so they can do no wrong. The NRA didn't murder 27 people, a maniac did. The NRA stands up for our second amendment rights just as the ACLU (although I often disagree with them) stands up for our first amendment rights. And make no mistake. I don't always agree with the NRA either. Not because they are too hard core. No, because sometimes they aren't hardcore enough. I don't compromise rights. I will fight with everything I have in me to protect mine. Benjamin Franklin when asked what form of government we have responded with "A Republic, if you can keep it." I plan on keeping it. It is a national tragedy indeed that so many children lost their lives that day, but it is also a national tragedy to lay down our rights with no effect just to say we did something.
No comments:
Post a Comment