main menu 










As long as we are argueing...let's make sure we are agreeing over the same thing..


We have been arguing over gun rights vehemently for about a month now and I haven't heard a reasonable, well thought out argument from either side yet. We are just throwing memes, sound bites and worthless statistics at each other. We continue to treat each other like morons. This is a complicated issue, and I assure you neither side is rooted in idiotic reasons.

The problem with the gun rights issue is that it is an apples vs oranges debate at this point. You can easily show pictures of tragedy and murders and big scary guys with guns...but you cannot show a picture of deterrence. The bad effects of gun ownership are visual and the good effects are not.So this issue is unique in the sense that people will tend to lean one way or the other based on how their brain is wired to process information. People are wired differently and respond to information differently so each side assumes the other is blind to the importance of what is going on.

Allow me, because the president of the NRA is apparently a moron, present to you the pro-gun rights side of the case. Agree or disagree you deserve to at least know that the other side is not a bunch of wild eyed imbeciles who think you need an assault rifle to hunt deer. make sure you have your grown up pants on, you must hear and accept this- This is a dangerous world and there are dangerous people in it. This has always been the case and it will always be the case. That is not a pro or con sentance...that is simply the way things are. If you do not agree with that sentence then you are not adult enough to discuss anything let alone the constitution.

SECOND ...nothing in the constitution was set up with short term thinking in mind. None of it was about what might happen next tuesday, or what happened last tuesday. It was written with the understanding that the world changes drastically from generation to generation and the rights in it need to be there for long term reasons. If you can't think beyond next tuesday you are not adult enough to be discussing the constitution.

Everyone still here an adult? Good.

Gun ownership is about deterrence. It is about aggression being halted before it begins because of the possible of retaliation from the target of aggression. A larger man is far less likely to become aggressive towards a smaller man if there is some sort of equalizer. Bullies don't tend to punch larger kids, criminals tend not to rob police stations, governments tend not to try to oppress armed populaces. Without a deterrent, the only thing keeping aggression in check is the whim of the more powerful entity.

Below is the most misread sentence in our counties history...

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.

look at where the comma is...This is not saying that people should own guns to be in a militia. It is saying the STATE needs a militia (that was the name for the military as it stood at the time) and because the RULING STATE was going to be armed the PEOPLE will also be armed in order to remain on EQAUL footing with it's RULERS. The men who wrote this just engaged in a bloody struggle with an oppressive government. They knew that any government could eventually become oppressive and EVENTUALLY the people may have to defend themselves from IT. But ALSO ...a government that had an armed population was going to be far less likely to go overboard with their oppression. The gun ownership in this country is a deterrence. Evil men, corrupt men, power hungry men...WILL find their way into government. It is what they do ...short of singling out the "aggressive, ambition" gene upon conception, men like this WILL find there way into POWER. In this country however those men find their way into governing an armed population ...this notion tends to curb much of their daydreaming and limit them to economic schemes. We have all seen the results of their tendency towards economic schemes. The country is rotting from them ...because there is little deterrence against them. There is a large deterrence against actual physical oppression here in the form of gun ownership and that is why they steal money and not people.

The most likely thoughts in you head right now are

" the Hitler's of the world existed in other countries that can't happen here. "

Why do you think that? Do you think that there are in less evil men this country? Less ignorant pawns? Do you think that history does not repeat itself? Maybe you view our politicians as more lazy and corrupt than dangerous...ask yourself this - how many people is our government killing across the globe right now? They seem pretty damn dangerous to me. Are you under the delusion that some of them wouldn't be happier rounding up all the people that are in their way and just ...making them...go away? You are not forced to hold political office in this country. These people are in power because they WANTED POWER. I am sure that there are a few that would just love to declare Marshall law and be done with all this politics and voting crap. Think maybe someone watching the "occupy wall street" groups wouldn't have liked them to just...go away. Think there isn't someone out there who would like all the Gays to just...go away? or Christians? or anyone else who is annoying them and is a pebble in their shoe as they march towards long term goals? That is a passing daydream in their minds because there is no way you could do it in this country without having a firefight.

"our troops would never agree to aggressive action against there own citizens".

I believe you are correct. They wouldn' is the key though, if the population is unarmed, rounding them up is not "aggressive" is it? It's just rounding them up. If they throw a few rocks, you tear gas them or whatever and proceed with the simple order of moving people from point A to point B. Moving people from point A to point B isn't a moral issue. However if the population is armed you may have to fire on them to proceed. ONLY THEN does the moral issue really come into focus. Only then does the "is this really what I should be doing" question really hit home. The barrel of a gun pointed back at you changes the decision from "is this really my job?" to "Is this what I want to risk my life to do?". It is far easier to get someone to follow unsavory orders if their life is not at risk in trying to follow them through.

That may all sound like crazy talk, so let's consider the other reason the founding fathers wanted the people armed. A "militia" isn't a very formidable force truth be told. A "militia" was not going to cut it as far as keeping this country secure from OUTSIDE forces. They wanted the people armed to not only protect themselves FROM the government but to protect the government itself if need be. World War Two wasn't really that long ago, there are still people alive who lived through it. In World War Two this country was facing possible INVASION. That meant that the average Joe would be watching a foreign army marching into his town. Certain parties in Mexico offered free passage to Japan and Germany to march right into the U.S. THIS HAPPEND DURING THE LIFETIME OF PEOPLE STILL ON THIS EARTH. This offer was turned down because "there would be a gun waiting for us behind every blade of grass".


"The world was far different then...we don't need these kinds of weapons now"

I believe you are correct ...NOW. We don't need them NOW. We needed them a little while ago though...and in a decade, or less...we may NEED them again. "NOW" is not why this amendment was written.

It has been centuries since we have been invaded by foreign powers. Do you think that is because the rest of the world loves us so much? Do you think it is because Mexico is such a staunch ally that they would never allow safe passage to those would would do us harm? Mexico by the way has more then a few people in government positions that are in put the guy on his knees and shoot him in the head. That is what is in charge of our neighboring country of Mexico. They are only not a problem now because they are broke. If and when they have money it will be like living next door to Iran. Do you think it is because the ocean is so big and scary that no one can figure out how to get their troops here? Do you think it is because no one has decided they sure would like our natural recourses? We landed a hell of allot of solders on Europe's beaches on D-day. It is merely logistics getting troops here. A military strategy can be concocted to deal with combating our military. Combating 80 million gun owners placed randomly across the U.S. combined with our military force however is what is referred to in military circles as a "clusterfuck". The cold war happened in my lifetime...some of you are to young to remember but only a couple decades ago we were on the continual brink of war with Russia. The threat of Russian invasion was not some paranoid fantasy. We were on the brink of that for years. Deep in some bunker a Russian general with a chest full of fancy medals had the job of devising an invasion strategy and was wringing his hands over that fact that, while he could get troop positions, armed infantry positions, and the like from satellite pictures, there was no way to account for 80 million guns in the hands of randomly placed U.S. citizens. DETERRINCE. This is not fantasy, this is not conspiracy theory...this is historical fact and interviews of historical figures. The nations of the world, many of which at one time or another had designs on invading this country, put the task of planning how to do so in the hands of men who returned with the answer "don't bother, the casualty rate would make it a mathematic impossibility". Military rule of thumb is you need nine men for even one man the enemy has rooted into position. Aside from our military, there are 80 million armed citizens...the math alone is a deterrent.

" Well we aren't facing threats from any nations that would think about invading now anyway."

Really? Have you heard the Chinese governments position on the U.S. lately? Did you know they own the panama canal? It's a stones throw away from us if you didn't know. "They aren't going to try anything"...why? Because they love us so much? Find some sound bites of Chinese officials. Because they aren't aggressive? Find some sound bites of Chinese generals...or better yet ask Japan or Korea how peaceful the Chinese are, and how little stomach they have for extended wars. They aren't going to try anything because 80 million randomly placed guns exist in this country. DETERRINCE. DETERRINCE is why the second amendment is so important. The world was vastly different in 1945, in 1967, in 1980, in will be vastly different in ten years and twenty years. Outside threats need that deterrence to remain outside threats and not inside threats.

"it doesn't matter anyway because you can't stop tanks, drones, and airplanes with firearms anyway". Really...tell that to Afghanistan.

That is the reason gun rights are important, and were created, Not hunting or sports shooting. DETERRINCE.

I'm sorry I can't show you gut wrenching pictures, or terrifying news footage like the anti gun right movement ...actually I'm not sorry. Deterrence created by the second amendment is the reason I can't, and I'm glad of it.

The world is a big scary place, full of power mad murderous people, some of them live far away and some of them live very close. I can give you 80 million reasons why none of those people are seriously looking in our direction. Without those 80 million reasons everything is vastly different, and not different in any way that has long term good for for a population that can no longer own firearms. If you happen to be a visually minded person, visualize this- a world where our corrupt government has firearms, the corrupt governments of the world have firearms, lawbreakers have fire arms...and we don't. There would be no deterrence against whatever action those people decided to take against us other then their own shifting sense of morality. I'm not a philosopher but that seems like a bad idea.

Now ...If you still think it is a good idea to reboot the second amendment because a handful of the 80 MILLION legal gun owners did something incredibly insane, if you think the way things are now...are the way things will be in five, ten, twenty years and we will never need to be armed because the benevolent U.S. government will never fall into the hands of evil men, and evil men overseas will never conceive of a way to land on these shores...that's your prerogative. I just want you to understand that the people who disagree with you do so because of an understanding of human nature and of history. I just want us to all be clear on why the second amendment is there. It is there, so that people who are willing to attack civilians ...of which there are many on this earth...know that the U.S. is the least logical place to do so.  It is not there so that a bunch of guys here can shot ducks with an ak-47, it is so that people who would do us harm know there are a bunch of guys here who can shot a duck with an ak-47.

Thank you...carry on.




The Arsenic Lullabies and all materials on this site I �� Doug Paszkiewicz.