It's been a while since I gave "the treatment" to some authoritarian's steaming pile of editorial BS. It's time.
This time I'll dissect this "guest editorial": Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment by Paul Shriver
"Constitutional Carry": What a euphemistic, "newspeak" concept!
There's no euphemism (perhaps you don't know what the word means) and it's not newspeak. The Constitution doesn't allow government to forbid (or vet or license) the carrying (or ownership) of personal weapons. At all. In fact, it explicitly forbids government to have any say about weapons whatsoever (which is what you have a problem with). Making government obey the rules which apply to it is just the way it is, like it or not.
True Constitutional Carry would remove ALL government oversight and control. Every speck of it. It does no good for you to lie about it just because you don't like it.
Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally "logical" step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.
I doubt the Indiana governor is honest or ethical enough to do what you pretend to fear he'll do next. I'm sure he's an anti-gun bigot, too, just like all politicians. He's just not quite as fearful and bigoted as you, and that upsets you.
Yes, unregulated firearm ownership is logical, and-- as with all rights-- applies to every man, woman, and child able to exercise that right responsibly and accept the consequences. Every human alive has equal and identical rights. Sadly for you, it's not up to you or any politicians to decide who is responsible and thus violate their rights based on your flawed opinion. Not even if you're a credentialed "expert".
Already, neighborhood and school shootings are "commonplace;" "ghost" gun kits and plastic, 3-D copier "homemades" are becoming ubiquitous; and "doorbuster" big box rushes follow every histrionic media saturation of mass firearm attacks and the Indiana Legislature wants gun ownership to be unregulated.
Neighborhood shootings are only commonplace in those neighborhoods which seek to violate the right of the residents to defend themselves and their property. School shootings are rare. Very rare. But they are more common than they would be, due to dangerously ignorant anti-gun policies, like those you apparently support, which make sure that they are slaughterhouses full of unarmed inmates where bad guys can kill without fear of being stopped.
"Ghost guns" are just guns; made the way all guns were historically made: without government tracking numbers and fees paid-- by individual craftsmen. It's what all guns used to be, and what all guns should still be. 3D-printed guns are the same: homemade, non-commercial firearms. It's not evil to make things yourself, but it is evil to try to forbid it.
The media (and anti-liberty bigots like you) feed the fear and demand disarmament which creates the environment and conditions for mass shootings to happen. If you don't like the inevitable reaction, why set it in motion?
Just because politicians don't want to regulate firearms (and thus be guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes) to the same insane extent you wish they would isn't the same as letting guns be unregulated. You're lying again.
Biden and anti-gun lobbyists "pussyfoot" around the only real issue — the "right" itself —while insanities are amok and lunatics run the asylum. We seem precariously balanced on a fragile tipping point. The time seems right and essential for a total reboot as the only sensible solution to the gun violence problem. (Gun violence being a redundancy).
The first part of your paragraph doesn't even make sense; it's what is referred to as "word salad". I guess "you had to be there" inside your cramped little brain to get the point you thought you were making.
Tell me, when is the time right-- when does it make sense to you-- to enslave the population? This is what you are proposing.
There is no such thing as a "gun violence problem". There is an aggression problem; the tools used are irrelevant. And violence, with the tools used still being irrelevant, can be the solution to aggression. Self-defense often solves the problem of aggression. If you don't like "gun violence" would you be happier if the aggressors used machetes? If not, why whine about guns? Because it fits your anti-liberty agenda and you hate or fear guns. You don't like people being able to defend life (their own and that of others), liberty (I think you don't know what liberty is and wouldn't approve if you did), and property (it's obvious from this whole editorial that you don't respect property rights) with tools you fear. Maybe this hints at your inclinations.
Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society. Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain or more lethal with less effort than a firearm. No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one's feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to "free speech" or even exist as a "right" on the same piece of paper.
Violence isn't aggression. Violence (the use of physical force) is ethically neutral; aggression (the initiation of physical force) is ethically wrong. Most forms of work are violent acts. Homicide, when the dead person was the aggressor, is a good, ethical outcome. Or did you believe "homicide" was interchangeable with "murder", you silly illiterate moron?
Guns are easy to obtain? Have you bought a firearm recently? Not counting the expense, you've got to go through the criminal government's vetting process to be allowed to do something you have a natural human right to do.
Cars kill with little effort. Drugs kill with little effort. No, government has zero right to regulate those things, either. The amount of effort isn't a real issue. If someone is being attacked by an aggressor, ease of use and lethality is a feature, not a bug.
No reasonable person imagines that shooting a gun is a way to express feelings or opinions. It is a serious matter to defend life, liberty, or property. You don't do it based on feelings or opinions, but on credible threats.
And yes, the right to own and to carry any type of weapon everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking government's permission, is a natural human right. No other right is more important, nor is any other right less important. Rights are just rights. I'm guessing you have a problem understanding what a right is.
The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means. This would include specifics as to legal and reasonable legitimacy of uses, manufacture, sales, types, and related products.
Repeal the Second Amendment? Go ahead. The right to own and to carry weapons won't go away. It won't even change. Well, it might change to be stronger. The only reason the US exists at all is that the Bill of Rights-- all of it-- was added to the Constitution. It was a package deal. Alter the deal and the deal is OFF. I'm fine with that. Are you?
It's not the Bill of Privileges. It is a list of things the government is absolutely prohibited from doing because they are rights, which means it is wrong to violate them. They do it anyway, so some might say they've already broken the deal.
There's nothing good or civilized in allowing the mob, through democratic means or otherwise, to decide which rights to violate. Bigots like you often fetishize democracy (when it goes their way).
In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not "re-legalized," eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.
This is where you expose your willingness to steal property from others. Just like any common crook. It's not about inconvenience-- it's about rights. It's not about what bigots like you feel is appropriate. It's simply not up to you or those like you. Yes, your proposal is anti-gun. Worse, it is anti-gun-owner and anti-liberty, anti-life, and anti-property. Nothing is more extreme than advocating a mass violation of human rights by an authoritarian government, even if it is empowered by mob rule (democracy).
Personally, I would not recommend self-defense either by pre-emptive or counter attack as an appropriate use, as there are many effective and less lethal options. Of course, under the new laws, it would still be true that if (some) guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns, but non-compliance would make (possibly) you, (former law-abiding citizen) one of them, now wouldn't it? (And good luck with that.)
If you don't like self-defense, it makes me believe you want to be able to be the aggressor without risk of being stopped by your intended victim or a rescuer. What "effective" options do you approve of? Do they take physical handicaps into account? Is a quill and ink bottle an effective alternative to modern communication methods? Will you decide it is safer for people like you if you get to choose what tools they will be allowed to use?
I would gladly be an outlaw in your gun ban Utopia. If you make me live as an outlaw, what's the downside of embracing it fully? I'd never become a parasite like you, but I might stop caring about obeying "laws" that protect bad guys from the rightful consequences of their behavior. If enough come to the same conclusion, things would become very bad for people like you, really fast.
In closing, I remind the reader of the playwright Chekov's quote: "If, in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired." Also: "He who lives by the (sword) ... etc." Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.
Firing a pistol isn't a bad thing. It can be if the one firing it is a bad guy intent on aggression. If it is fired in defense, it is a good thing. Even something to celebrate when it keeps the innocent alive. If it is fired in sport, then great! Do more of that. Don't be ashamed of firing that pistol.
Having, or using, a gun in defense is not "living by" the gun. Do you "live by" the shoe because you wear shoes? You're a dishonest idiot.
If you believe a gun that is "not very accurate" is "little threat", you show why no sensible person would ever listen to your ignorant, vapid opinions on gun-related matters. Nothing is more dangerous than an inaccurate gun, unless it is a haughty anti-gun bigot who hallucinates the moral superiority to lecture his intellectual betters about guns and rights.
Universal disarmament will never happen. Humans have never been totally unarmed and never will be. Even if you magically eliminated every firearm on the planet, people would find or invent new weapons, or they'd pick up sticks and stones to use as weapons. Weapons are a necessity of life. The attempt to eliminate guns or weapons will never result in peace or good will. The opposite would happen. I hope my kids and grandkids are never unfortunate enough to live in your authoritarian "Utopia".
You are an ignorant, dishonest monster of the worst kind.
-
If you agree with me, or just enjoyed the post, PLEASE subscribe or donate.
I would really appreciate it!
