Damn the NRA ...
... for ever framing the 2nd Amendment debate as a hunting issue.
Any Constitutional scholar will tell you that the Bill of Rights was put in place as a promise to the American people that power flowed upward — from the people — and the the people allowed the government to exist — not the other way around.
So when I see people asking "why people need an assault rifle to go hunting?" the simple answer is, they don't. They need an assault rifle to protect themselves from a potential totalitarian government.
Those who would make gun ownership illegal would start with assault rifles, making the hunting argument.
Then they'd add handguns. "Who hunts with a Glock 9mm, anyway?"
Then hunting rifles. "Hunting is totally unnecessary in this day and age. You can just buy your bear meat at Super Walmart."
And finally, pointy sticks. "I mean, what good is a pointy stick anyway, aside from inflicting harm on people ... and marshmallows?"
Next thing you know, we have no means of defending ourselves. But the anti-gun types will tell you that the police can defend us ... moreover, the government can defend us. But who's going to defend us against the government? Are we just to assume that these people with complete power over us will rule benevolently? Has that ever happened before?
Personally, I think we should go in the other direction. People think I'm crazy, but I believe that if the federal government can own something (napalm, kevlar-piercing bullets, atomic bombs) then we should be able to own it, too.
How can we control the government if they have more firepower than us? At the voting booth? Please. Do you really think that Romney and Obama are all that different? If we elect Romney, he's going to undo all the bad laws from his predecessors? If there's one thing that's been consistent over the generations, it's the constant erosion of our rights. Romney's not going to stop that. He'll just think of a new law that's bigger and more erosive than all the previous ones put together.
In terms of practicality, do I think that the people should own atomic bombs? No. But I don't think the government should either. And before you make the argument that the government is diligent enough to own nukes, I'd like to remind you or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Further, there seems to be an argument that if everyone in the theater in Aurora, Colo. was packing heat, someone would have taken out James Holmes before he could have shot 50+ people and killed 12. I don't necessarily believe that. I'm not suggesting that everyone SHOULD carry firearms. I'm just saying that it is — and should remain — our right to do so.
What happened in Colorado Friday morning was a horrible tragedy. A dozen people were senselessly killed. And there is no defense for Holmes' actions. But to respond by stripping 300,000,000 of our rights is sure as hell not the answer.
Sometimes bad people do bad things. That's no reason to make new laws preventing good people from doing the right thing.
Any Constitutional scholar will tell you that the Bill of Rights was put in place as a promise to the American people that power flowed upward — from the people — and the the people allowed the government to exist — not the other way around.
So when I see people asking "why people need an assault rifle to go hunting?" the simple answer is, they don't. They need an assault rifle to protect themselves from a potential totalitarian government.
Those who would make gun ownership illegal would start with assault rifles, making the hunting argument.
Then they'd add handguns. "Who hunts with a Glock 9mm, anyway?"
Then hunting rifles. "Hunting is totally unnecessary in this day and age. You can just buy your bear meat at Super Walmart."
And finally, pointy sticks. "I mean, what good is a pointy stick anyway, aside from inflicting harm on people ... and marshmallows?"
Next thing you know, we have no means of defending ourselves. But the anti-gun types will tell you that the police can defend us ... moreover, the government can defend us. But who's going to defend us against the government? Are we just to assume that these people with complete power over us will rule benevolently? Has that ever happened before?
Personally, I think we should go in the other direction. People think I'm crazy, but I believe that if the federal government can own something (napalm, kevlar-piercing bullets, atomic bombs) then we should be able to own it, too.
How can we control the government if they have more firepower than us? At the voting booth? Please. Do you really think that Romney and Obama are all that different? If we elect Romney, he's going to undo all the bad laws from his predecessors? If there's one thing that's been consistent over the generations, it's the constant erosion of our rights. Romney's not going to stop that. He'll just think of a new law that's bigger and more erosive than all the previous ones put together.
In terms of practicality, do I think that the people should own atomic bombs? No. But I don't think the government should either. And before you make the argument that the government is diligent enough to own nukes, I'd like to remind you or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Further, there seems to be an argument that if everyone in the theater in Aurora, Colo. was packing heat, someone would have taken out James Holmes before he could have shot 50+ people and killed 12. I don't necessarily believe that. I'm not suggesting that everyone SHOULD carry firearms. I'm just saying that it is — and should remain — our right to do so.
What happened in Colorado Friday morning was a horrible tragedy. A dozen people were senselessly killed. And there is no defense for Holmes' actions. But to respond by stripping 300,000,000 of our rights is sure as hell not the answer.
Sometimes bad people do bad things. That's no reason to make new laws preventing good people from doing the right thing.
