Total Pageviews

Saturday, August 10, 2013

4 Idiotic Pro Gun Control Arguments Debunked

1. The 2nd amendment only applies to people in a "well-regulated militia" like the National Guard.

Bull. First, the phrase "well-regulated" does not mean "government-controlled". The phrase at that time referred to things or groups which were in good condition or working correctly. Second, the first part of the 2nd amendment does not say WHO may keep and bear arms; it gives the reason WHY people should be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Third, in case the Constitution is not clear enough, most state constitutions explicitly grant the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense:

Connecticut 1818: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Kentucky 1792: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Massachusetts 1780: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

North Carolina 1776: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Pennsylvania 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

So there it is- in black and white, clear as crystal, & plain as day.

2. A gun owner is more likely to shoot themselves or a family member than an intruder.

This figure comes from a guy named Kellerman whose study contained numerous flaws. Among these were that his sample included a large number of criminals who were more likely to be armed and more likely to be victims of homicide.

But suppose for the sake of argument we accept the study's conclusion. If this is really true, why do politicians, celebrities, & police hire guards and/or arm themselves and keep weapons in their homes?
It's clear they feel much safer with guns than without them. Makes sense to me. How many times have read about someone trying to mug a uniformed police officer? Or a politician?

Look at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Here, he walks through a crime-ridden neighborhood to prove it's safe- and he only took 5 armed guards with him.

3. Without gun laws, anyone could by a machine gun/rpg/evil-murder-death-assault-rifle-hyper- cannon!!!!111!!!eleventy!

Almost all gun crime is committed with handguns. Criminals like them because they are cheap and easy to hide. So even if machine guns were easy to get, crooks would still be using handguns because you can't hide a tommy gun in your waistband. The reason criminals don't use military weapons for crime is the same reason they don't use catapults and trebuchets.

4. There's no point in owning guns to defend against the government because they have all the firepower.

Oh really? The people who won the war for independence were poorly-trained and lightly-armed. Ditto for the North Vietnamese and mujahideen. It is impossible to tyrannize an armed population. This is why all tyrants seek to disarm the people. The Tokugawa shoguns did it, the Nazis did it, the various Communist regimes did it, and just about every other authoritarian hellhole is trying to do it.

If guns aren't useful for resisting the government, why do tyrants always try to get rid of them?


No comments: