This is the sort of tyranny the “founding fathers” were protecting against.
If you talk with people about changing gun laws, it won’t be very long before someone shows up and explains that one of the main reasons we have the second amendment is to “protect us against the tyranny of our own government.” Believe me–I have had enough of these conversations to know… If you ask why people feel like they need to have weapons of war, they will invariably attempt to explain to you that the Second Amendment (which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) was written so that we could be armed to fight against our own government… When Obama comes to enslave the American people, I assume… Per the diabolical plans that he is obliged to carry out as a secret Muslim.
It couldn’t… Could it?
Now… Forget, for a moment, that the words of the 2nd Amendment are a jumbled mess of a sentence that could be interpreted any number of ways… Seriously. A jumbled. Mess. Try to diagram that sentence–I dare you. If I wrote a sentence like that in middle school, there would have been red lines all over it. And forget, for a moment, that when someone tries to get gun regulations passed in Congress, people point to the 2nd Amendment as a sort of proof that regulations are unconstitutional… Even though the words “well regulated” are right there in the text. Regulations. As in, “well regulated.” And forget, for a moment, that if refers to a “militia.” Which is something completely different than every jackass with a $1000 in a PayPal account being able to buy an assault rifle online, without a background check, and carry around that assault rifle on the street. Or in a bar. Or in a school. Or in a church.
And–if you can–even forget that the military (if it wanted to) could TOTALLY destroy any sort of civilian-led rebellion. Your red neck uncle and his AR-15 would never stand a snowball’s chance in hell (if hell were a real place) against our trained, well-equipped military machine. They have artillery, they have mortars, they have machine guns, they have .50 caliber turrets, they have RPGs, they have armored transports, they have tanks, they have smart bombs, they have stinger missiles, they have hellfire missiles, they have bunker-busting missiles. They have DRONES… Remotely controlled, flying robots that rain down death from the sky! They have a freaking Air Force, with Blackhawk helicopters and F14s and all kinds of other ways to kill a whole lot of people at once. They have microwave cannons and sound cannons and lasers and God only know what else. And they have nukes, you guys… NUKES! If you think the crappy gun you bought from Dick’s Sporting Goods is keeping the government at bay, you are living in a dream world. Wake up.
Turns out police departments also have “bomb robots” that can kill you remotely… So that’s a little disconcerting.
But even forgetting all that–How low of a view of our troops do you have to have to think that they are going to turn on the American people? Have you people ever even MET an American soldier? Do you think that they are such conscience-free, mindless machines that they would train their sights on American civilians, just because some bureaucrat points his finger? Most of these people who are hell-bent on keeping military-style weapons in the hands of everyday citizens (and kids as well) are probably people who profess to “respect the troops.” They cheer at airports, they tear up when people post those videos of soldiers coming home and surprising their kids, they stick their yellow ribbon magnets on their cars… But when it comes down to it, they really don’t trust those men and women to do the right thing. They think we need as many high-powered, semi-automatic assault rifles as possible–Just in case those same men and women they pretend to honor decide to… what… Put them in chains? Take away their freedom? Tax their tea too high?
Be careful… When she gets done hugging her kid, she’s coming for your guns.
So here’s the thing: If you are demanding that there is a need for people to have weapons that can kill a whole lot of people in a very short time (sometimes known as a “weapon of mass destruction) because of some perceived threat from our tyrannical government, please stop acting like you “respect the troops.” You don’t. You think that soldier in the airport is in on the conspiracy. You think that parent coming home from war is willing to enslave the American people. You think those troops represented by that yellow ribbon are not defending us… You think they need to be ended AGAINST. And that is a lot of things–paranoia, fear, ignorance–but it’s certainly not respect.
Thanks for reading. I seriously love you guys. Thanks to my newest patron, Sarah. All it took was me saying I’d hold my nose and vote for Hillary… 🙂 If you’d like to be a patron and help support this blog, you can do that RIGHT HERE. That or PayPal. Or you can just share this and let someone else read it. Either way, I love writing for you, and I’m going to keep on doing it.
The Boeskool 
You are awesome….
You’re not literally THIS ignorant regarding guns, are you ?
I’m gonna take a second to completely dismantle some of the ridiculous “points” you made and “facts” you claim.
“Weapons of war” – an AR-15 or any other “assault rifle” as you call them is no more of a weapon of war than a Fiero with a body kit is a Lamborghini. Just because it looks the same doesn’t make it the same. The civilian version of those weapons operate COMPLETELY differently than the actual “weapons of war”.
“Any jackass with $1000 in his PayPal can buy an assault rifle without a background check” fully, completely, unequivocally incorrect. Stop spouting everything you hear on the news. The ONLY way someone can purchase ANY type of firearm without having a background check is to purchase the firearm from a private individual, in person, and only if both parties are residents of the same state. That’s how the supposed “gun show loophole” works – individuals are allowed to buy tables at a gun show and sell his own personal collection of firearms the same way an individual is allowed to buy a table at the flea market and sell their personal collection of shaved eyebrows.
Regarding the military being able to destroy any civilian led revolt. that’s probably true. But, just like you say in this article, our military will be a shell of what it is now. The vast majority will join the “revolution” or simply refuse to kill civilians. On top of that, look how hard it’s been for us to destroy such a small, civilian led force in the Middle East. Those insurgents are exactly what the United States’ civilians would be : a gurrilla force. Which is amongst the hardest to defeat.
Also, just a heads up – the military doesn’t have RPGs, those are Russian made. The Air Force doesn’t have F-14s, that was the navy. And beyond that, the F-14 has been retired for 10+ years now. In fact, several citizens own
F-14’s now…
And finally, you call them “high powered” rifles. What exactly is it that makes a rifle high powered ? What is a low powered rifle ? Obviously those must also exist if high powered rifles exist. Is it the size/effectiveness of the bullet ? What if I told you that the military actually chose the .223/5.56 bullet (what the AR-15 shoots) specifically because it’s NOT good at killing people ? It’s true. It’s called a force multiplier round. See, if they shoot an enemy with a bullet that’s very effective at killing, they’ll kill the person, and that takes 1 enemy combatant off the battlefield. But if they shoot the enemy with a bullet that doesn’t kill them, now 2 of the enemy’s buddies have to drag him off the battlefield to a medevac, so now they’ve taken THREE people off the battlefield. True story. Look it up.
@Jeremy: No amount of logical, fact based information is going to make a sicko gun nut like you see reason. I just hope for the sake of my kids and grandkids that there a lot more Chrises than Jeremys out there. God help us all.
Lmao try me ! I haven’t seen any ACTUAL “fact based” information in this post. Please, hit me with some facts. You can tell me I’m wrong all you want, but without supporting evidence it’s nothing more than your opinion.
I’m about the furthest thing from a “gun nut” that you can find. Up until recently I supported strict gun regulations. That is, until I ACTUALLY was presented with facts (not shit some blogger construes as facts, but actual facts, verifiable by an independent, credible source) and realized that gun control does absolutely zilch. California and Chicago for example. Australia and the U.K. for example. All of which had SIGNIFICANT increases in violent crime following the passage of gun control.
But, seriously. Show me facts. I truly WANT to support effective gun control. I really do. As an individual, I lean towards supporting it, but logically I can’t support it, bearing in mind all of the factual evidence I’ve come across. If someone were to present facts that contradicted those that I’m aware of, I’d happily vote for anti-gun legislation.
Statistics from California and Chicago are meaningless when it comes to violent crime and gun control because we don’t stop people from crossing state borders (or city borders, in the Chicago case) and check for guns. Nothing stops someone from buying a gun in St. Louis and driving 20 minutes to Illinois. As for Australia and the UK, you need to look at the facts. They have almost zero mass shootings – for a really good reason. The average joe can’t get a military style or semi automatic weapon there. Any reasonable, thinking person knows that more guns equals more gun violence. Anyone who believes otherwise is in denial or is just not very bright.
Right. they don’t stop you at a checkpoint as you come into the state to check for guns, because that’s illegal and unconstitutional. Are you implying that’s what you prefer they did ?
But I disagree. If those areas stayed the SAME after guns were outlawed, you could 100% chock it up to guns coming in from different areas. But the fact that they DRAMATICALLY rose shows that it’s clearly something else. If it was simply because the criminals were “still” able to get the guns, then obviously they would’ve had the guns in the first place and would’ve killed at the same rate. The only logical answer is that the crime rate grew because it was easier to victimize unarmed people.
But, let’s play your game for a minute. Let’s say it’s because other places in the United States still sell guns so people just go pick up the guns in another state and bring them in with them. So, we outlaw guns. Now what ? Because there’s still hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. A lot of those guns will go away, sure. As LAW ABIDING people turn them in. But obviously the criminals won’t. So now there are still millions of guns on the street, free to cross the border into any city they want. How is that any different ? You still can’t stop people just to search them for guns, and the criminals can still move freely. youll absolutely reduce the number of people killed by gunshot, cause it’ll reduce the number of law abiding citizen killing criminals in self defense.
On to the UK and Australia – obviously they don’t have mass shootings like we do. But mass shootings don’t even account for 1 PERCENT of gun deaths in the US. And not even a FRACTION of a percent of homicide in general. mass shootings are not our problem. Taking mass shootings as your reason for wanting to do something is tantamount to knowing you have stage 4 cancer, but only trying to treat the weight loss. It makes absolutely no difference in the long run.
So, Australia and the U.K. “Fixed” the mass shooting. (I’ll even cite my sources for you here…) But you know what happened when they got rid of guns ? In the first 5 years after Australia’s ban, GUN violence went up 19%. Home invasion went up 21%. ARMED ROBBERY went up 69% (no one could protect themselves anymore). – Crime and Justice – Crimes Recorded by Police, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000
Those statistics just part of some other problem they were having that was unresolved ? Wrong. In the 15 years prior to the ban Australia had some of the least amount of crime it had ever seen. GUN homicides were down 66%. Till they got rid of the guns. – Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, Dr. Jeanine Baker and Dr. Samara McPhedran, British Journal of Criminology, November 1998
Australia and The U.K. are #1 and #2 respectively for the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault and assault with force out of the top SEVENTEEN industrialized countries. – Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001
The U.K ? They have the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe, and even more so than the United States and South Africa COMBINED. –
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations
FIREARM use has DOUBLED since the gun ban went into effect. – Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007
In 2008, the United States had violent crime committed against 446 people per 100,000 people, while the same year the U.K. had 2034 per 100,000. – The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations
Homicides committed by handguns reached an all-time high in recorded history in the U.K. in 2000 (what year was it that the gun ban went into effect?) – 42 killed by handguns last year, The Times, January 10, 2001, reporting on statistics supplied by the British Home Office
SO. There’s some facts. Please, feel free to do your own research and factcheck me. Even better, throw some facts my way that contradict what I just said. I’m not dumb enough to believe that taking away guns won’t decrease the amount of mass shootings we have. Of course they will. I don’t think it’ll completely do away with them, but it’ll decrease them. But mass shootings are such a MINISCULE part of our problem. And I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t matter to me what weapon a criminal uses to commit a violent crime. What matters to me is the victim. And I will NEVER be willing to sacrifice VASTLY MORE lives for the sake of changing the method by which they’re killed as evidenced by the 2 most popular countries with gun control. If you wanna be the person to go to the victims family and say “I’m so sorry to hear about your family member being stabbed to death. but hey, at least they weren’t SHOT!” Be my guest.
Have you looked at what happened in Australia? Is that fact-based enough?
The only way any sort of done legislation is going to be effective is if it is on a national level.
I have looked at Australia. I gave numerous facts about Australia in that most recent long ass post I made. Australia has had a SIGNIFICANT increase in violent crime starting directly after guns were banned. Crime has skyrocketed. In the first 5 years even GUN crime skyrocketed. Now gun crime has settled down, but for every homicide with a gun that’s been reduced, there are at least 3 more homicides with knives to replace them over the last 7 years. In other words, for every “life saved” by not being killed with a gun in Australia, 3 extra lives -above and beyond that during the time guns were legal- have been lost. Doesn’t seem like a good trade to me…
“For every homicide with a gun that’s been reduced, there are at least 3 more homicides with knives to replace them over the last 7 years.”
Show me your data, or don’t post it.
Lol and where is your data from all of the “facts” you’ve claimed in your blog ? Not a single source cited.
But, here’s 1 source. (Still looking for the source where I found the 3:1 statistic. I make a habit of saving most of the sources I find, but clearly I didn’t save that one). These statistics don’t show it up by 3 as was the case during the first 7 years, and I believe that was in the specific NSW area, but it’s nearly a 1:1 swap nationwide in just the 2009-2011 period. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/knife-killings-on-the-rise-in-australia-as-gun-murders-fall-says-new-criminology-report/story-e6frg6nf-1226581896001
Gun homicides are down from 25 percent (of all homicides) to 13% (the 2 years included in these statistics included 510 homicides, and it’s down by 12%, which is 61 homicides fewer by guns) meanwhile knife homicides are up by 11% which is 57. But people still think those who WOULDVE killed with a gun will just use another weapon instead.
Jeremy, I appreciate a good-faith effort to present statistics, especially with sources (and Chris I think your doing so more frequently could really strengthen your persuasive writing). That said, many of the stats you (Jeremy) present are very old and have changed dramatically since those first few years of implementation. Some “facts” are inaccurate or misconstrued. And some are accurate but don’t really establish causality. (Just as one counter-example: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp). To be fair, the pro-gun-legislation camp is frequently guilty of the same.
I get really frustrated on this issue because I feel like every time I see what appears to be empirical data that supports some specific remedial solution, I eventually see other seemingly legitimate data that appears to mitigate the likely effectiveness of that approach.
My main *problem* with your response is the voracity with which you’re willing to “dismantle” an argument with aggressive snarkasm while never really presenting an alternative solution. Would you (Jeremy) be willing to offer a solution to the problem of gun violence, both at mass scale and individual, based on whatever you consider to be reputable fact from credible sources? I’m SO weary of having those opposed to gun regulation vehemently argue “that’ll never work” without being willing to offer a data-substantiated alternative plan of action. Everybody on both sides of the issue seems to agree that there’s a problem, but I only see one side trying to offer legitimate solutions. It is a collective, systemic problem, and therefore I believe it requires a collective (read “regulatory”) solution, at least in part. So how do you propose we improve things?
-reposting this so its in the right place –
GlenT, I can appreciate the change in statistics since then, and I’m sure some of it is due to the gun legislation, but there’s been a lot of other changes made that have decreased crime in general (not just homicide) in Australia, which has decreased homicide also, separate from the gun legislation. For example the dismantling of several large gangs that were still using guns to kill each other up until the point they were taken apart. It wasn’t the gun legislation that stopped them from killing each other, it was the police department’s gang task force that indicted them and now they’re in prison, unable to use guns to kill each other.
You’re absolutely right that there is significant conflicting data on the matter. And just a few years ago before I owned a single gun, when I vehemitely supported the full prohibition of firearm ownership without exception, I got quite frustrated also for the same thing. Every point I made that was supported by facts could be disputed by another statistic supported by facts that someone else made. That prompted me to start doing research on both the crime statistics as well as the operation of firearms (I took several gunsmith classes without being the slightest bit “into” guns because I was tired of hearing on one side that AR-15s are these incredible death machines that the military uses and even they’re afraid of them, etc. and on the other side that the AR-15 is an extremely watered down version of an M4/M-16 that even hunters only use to hunt mice and squirrels. So I decided to go find out for myself by taking those classes. And through that, I learned that the truth is FAR closer to the latter than the former.
As far as solutions, that is of course a tricky one. Of course the “ideal” response for a gun enthusiast is to simply leave it alone. Despite the fact that mass shootings seem to be happening significantly more often now, gun crime in general has steadily declined over the last several years. My solution would NEVER be to revoke a constitutional right, as so many seem to support. Not because I can’t live without guns, because I can. But rather because I believe once 1 right is stripped, it opens Pandora’s box to take away any of them. For example, since people can use their right to free speech to bully people into suicide, we should get rid of the first amendment. And since people transport drugs intrastate all the time, let’s start putting up checkpoints all over the interstate and stop every car to check for drugs. People don’t really need their right to travel freely. Etc.
So, I try to look at both sides and find the merits in both. While gun enthusiasts are right about the fact that homicides in general are down significantly and so in the grand scheme of things, the mass shootings don’t make a difference with regard to how many people are actually killed each year, I also see that mass shootings are horrific and are significantly more “shocking” than normal gun violence (even though normal gun violence takes 99% more lives than mass shootings do each year) and I fully support trying to stop mass shootings, provided that solution isn’t to simply take away all guns.
All that said, my solution would be to mandate that private sales require a background check (provided the ATF doesn’t charge for that check the way they currently do, and that civilians are able to preform them themselves, rather than having to go to a gun dealer to have the check preformed like they currently have to for each and every firearm they want to sell) and to create a database for mental health professionals to “flag” individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others, provided those people are given DUE PROCESS in the determination of whether their rights are taken away. I.E.- a review board consisting of Law enforcement, mental health professionals, lawyers, etc who will ensure that the person is treated fairly and that they’re given an opportunity to dispute the removal of their rights.
And finally with regard to the no-fly list ban, the same due process needs to be afforded to them. Too many people have been added to that list because they have a similar sounding name, they weren’t cooperative with TSA for some reason, or the government deems them a “domestic terrorist” not because they’ve ever done or planned anything violent, but because they challenge the government in something they believe is unconstitutional.
For the no fly list, there currently is no way whatsoever to find out if you’re on the list (aside from trying to fly) and if you are, WHY you’re on the list. There’s no due process prior to being added to the list where one may dispute the charges against them before being added. Currently, that’s constitutional (though perhaps unethical) to no provide due process, because flying is not a constitutional right. However if that list becomes tied to gun ownership, it’ll be unconstitutional because gun ownership IS a right.
Great post! I never really thought about the gun regulation debate this way… even if Americans were guerrillas, they wouldn’t stand a chance if the police and armed forces were to turn on them. I believe at least stricter restrictions should be placed on how easily you can come into possession of a fire arm. It’s harder to get an abortion for women who choose to get one, and that’s just blasphemous. Thanks for sharing!
I just posted on my blog about how we as a nation can grow from last week’s tragedies in Dallas and across the country in isolated police brutality cases.
check it out here if you have a minute 🙂 –> http://www.hungryhornyhonest.wordpress.com
iambcvilla, maybe you are friends with Chris or have some kind of agreement, but either way I find it distasteful that, twice now, you are really here pitching your own blog. While your intentions maybe good and your blog maybe fabulous, I feel it distracts from the dialogue the readers are engaged in and I feel I’m just reading an advertisement instead.
In case you didn’t know, this is how people continue dialogues. It was never meant in any disrespect and honestly, it shouldn’t bother you. If you aren’t interested in reading someone else’s blog, someone who continues a dialogue from the blog you follow, then simply move on. Yes, bloggers try to get read so they find other bloggers with similar posts and connect with them. That’s how it works in this world…
GlenT, I can appreciate the change in statistics since then, and I’m sure some of it is due to the gun legislation, but there’s been a lot of other changes made that have decreased crime in general (not just homicide) in Australia, which has decreased homicide also, separate from the gun legislation. For example the dismantling of several large gangs that were still using guns to kill each other up until the point they were taken apart. It wasn’t the gun legislation that stopped them from killing each other, it was the police department’s gang task force that indicted them and now they’re in prison, unable to use guns to kill each other.
You’re absolutely right that there is significant conflicting data on the matter. And just a few years ago before I owned a single gun, when I vehemitely supported the full prohibition of firearm ownership without exception, I got quite frustrated also for the same thing. Every point I made that was supported by facts could be disputed by another statistic supported by facts that someone else made. That prompted me to start doing research on both the crime statistics as well as the operation of firearms (I took several gunsmith classes without being the slightest bit “into” guns because I was tired of hearing on one side that AR-15s are these incredible death machines that the military uses and even they’re afraid of them, etc. and on the other side that the AR-15 is an extremely watered down version of an M4/M-16 that even hunters only use to hunt mice and squirrels. So I decided to go find out for myself by taking those classes. And through that, I learned that the truth is FAR closer to the latter than the former.
As far as solutions, that is of course a tricky one. Of course the “ideal” response for a gun enthusiast is to simply leave it alone. Despite the fact that mass shootings seem to be happening significantly more often now, gun crime in general has steadily declined over the last several years. My solution would NEVER be to revoke a constitutional right, as so many seem to support. Not because I can’t live without guns, because I can. But rather because I believe once 1 right is stripped, it opens Pandora’s box to take away any of them. For example, since people can use their right to free speech to bully people into suicide, we should get rid of the first amendment. And since people transport drugs intrastate all the time, let’s start putting up checkpoints all over the interstate and stop every car to check for drugs. People don’t really need their right to travel freely. Etc.
So, I try to look at both sides and find the merits in both. While gun enthusiasts are right about the fact that homicides in general are down significantly and so in the grand scheme of things, the mass shootings don’t make a difference with regard to how many people are actually killed each year, I also see that mass shootings are horrific and are significantly more “shocking” than normal gun violence (even though normal gun violence takes 99% more lives than mass shootings do each year) and I fully support trying to stop mass shootings, provided that solution isn’t to simply take away all guns.
All that said, my solution would be to mandate that private sales require a background check (provided the ATF doesn’t charge for that check the way they currently do, and that civilians are able to preform them themselves, rather than having to go to a gun dealer to have the check preformed like they currently have to for each and every firearm they want to sell) and to create a database for mental health professionals to “flag” individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others, provided those people are given DUE PROCESS in the determination of whether their rights are taken away. I.E.- a review board consisting of Law enforcement, mental health professionals, lawyers, etc who will ensure that the person is treated fairly and that they’re given an opportunity to dispute the removal of their rights.
And finally with regard to the no-fly list ban, the same due process needs to be afforded to them. Too many people have been added to that list because they have a similar sounding name, they weren’t cooperative with TSA for some reason, or the government deems them a “domestic terrorist” not because they’ve ever done or planned anything violent, but because they challenge the government in something they believe is unconstitutional.
For the no fly list, there currently is no way whatsoever to find out if you’re on the list (aside from trying to fly) and if you are, WHY you’re on the list. There’s no due process prior to being added to the list where one may dispute the charges against them before being added. Currently, that’s constitutional (though perhaps unethical) to no provide due process, because flying is not a constitutional right. However if that list becomes tied to gun ownership, it’ll be unconstitutional because gun ownership IS a right.
“You’re absolutely right that there is significant conflicting data on the matter.”
I appreciate your frustration about both sides finding data that suits there agenda. There is a huge reason we all are unable to get affirmative data we all can unite behind and support solutions. Research and funding has been roadblock for decades. The Dickey amendment in 1996 was just the beginning. If we all agree that gun deaths are a public health issue then we should all agree to fund research to credible solutions. This article demonstrates how we have failed to support obtaining scientific data.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gun-research-faces-roadblocks-and-dearth-data
Another one showing how the NRA has impeded research.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html
Until we find common ground to unite behind, frustrations about solutions will continue to be pervasive but that doesn’t mean we don’t try. I believe most responsible gun owners want solutions as well and I appreciate that you put forth some ideas of you own.
@Jeremy: “Right. they don’t stop you at a checkpoint as you come into the state to check for guns, because that’s illegal and unconstitutional. Are you implying that’s what you prefer they did?” That’s what you got from my comment?! *sigh*