I love America and therefore I hate its enemy, the United States of America. It's odd how many people are confused by that statement.
Body counts aren't a good argument
There couldn't be a less convincing argument for them to make. Sorry. And it isn't that I don't care. I care a lot! I've had three close friends who were shot; two of them died as a result of being intentionally shot by evil losers. (The other was intentionally shot by an evil loser who was mugging him, but he survived.) That's no excuse to support anti-gun legislation. I'm not going to punish you for the deaths because it wasn't your fault. You didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I believe if you'd been there and were properly armed you would have tried to save their lives-- and I say this to anyone reading this blog.
The problem is never "too many guns", and there is no way to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" without keeping them out of too many of the right hands, too. And the wrongest of the wrong hands-- government employees-- are never even factored in.
Even if you use the dumb excuse of preventing the "mentally ill" from having guns by imposing draconian legislation, that's a hard "No" from me. Keep legislation out of it.
People die tragically every day. If you believe guns should be banned or rationed by the state because they are a tool that is sometimes involved in tragic deaths, why not food? (And yeah, I realize there are government-supremacists like a former NYC mayor who would support rationing or banning food on this pretext, too.)
Thousands of people choke on food annually. I know of someone whose young son choked on a piece of popcorn and died before they could save him. People commit slow suicide with food by grossly over-eating and by eating horribly unhealthy things. You've seen it happen. Evil people have served poisoned food to others as a way to murder them. Sometimes there are food "malfunctions" (contaminated food) and people die from it.
Still, no one has the right to ban food. It's crazy or evil to even suggest it. No one has the right to regulate food, either, but they've already got their foot in the door on that point.
Back to guns: You could argue that there are other defensive tools you could use instead of guns if guns were eliminated. But none are as effective as guns, especially in a world where you'll never get rid of all the guns as long as government employees have them. (If they were as effective as guns, I'd bet money that the gun-banners would want to ban them, too.)
You could argue that there are alternatives to traditional food, too. Twinkies, for example. (Just kidding.) People could swallow nutrition pills instead of eating food to keep themselves alive. Or get hooked to an IV full of nutrients. The point is, there are suboptimal substitutes for food, but you could try to rely on them to keep you alive. Just like the suboptimal alternatives to guns.
With all its drawbacks, food saves more lives than it takes. So do guns, but that's not the part of the story that makes the news. It's more thrilling to focus on evil losers murdering people than on boring things like good people showing a bad guy a gun and encouraging the bad guy to go away quickly.
The lack of food kills. The lack of a gun can kill. Both are your natural human right-- which doesn't mean anyone is obligated to provide you with either one; they just have no right to prevent you from providing for yourself. Gun-banners are exactly as evil as those who would starve you to death to keep you safe from the very real dangers of food.
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com