I need to be clear that I do not take lightly what happened in Orlando. Nor Aurora. Nor Newtown. Nor any other place where gun violence took its bloody toll. I have no idea what it's like to watch my friends or loved ones die in a rain of bullets. However, it seems that there is a great deal of confusion with regard to not only gun laws, but the differences between guns themselves, particularly the AR-15.
Predictably, there has been a myriad of articles being written after Omar Sateen took 49 lives and injured 53. Most of the authors mean well, writing with such passion and conviction as if their words would summarily end gun violence once and for all. Over at Rolling Stone, there has been at least one such article written by constitutional scholar, David S. Cohen. In the article, "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment", Cohen provides examples of constitutional faux pas that needed to be repealed. However, Cohen's claim with regard that the Founder's "blatantly wrote racism" into the Constitution is well off the mark. Cohen is, of course, referring to Article I, Section II, Clause III, which states:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may include within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Cohen's interpretation of this clause is based on the long-held falsehood that the Constitution determined that black people are only three-fifths human. This is patently and demonstrably false, as the clause has nothing to do with race, but political representation. Happily, however, the 12th Amendment repealed the aforementioned clause.
But the main premise of Cohen's article is that the Second Amendment is something that is a "threat to liberty and a suicide pact" and needs to be repealed post haste. Instead of making a sound reason for why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed, he makes an appeal to emotion by inferring that the Founders were mere musket-toting revolutionaries that never could have foreseen that technology would someday make weapons that could kill multiple people by simply squeezing the trigger once. Not surprisingly, Cohen is wrong about this myth as I will elaborate on shortly. He furthers his emotional appeal by stating that we should just be allowed to enjoy our liberties to enjoy a night out with friends.
Meanwhile, another article at Rolling Stone has resurfaced since Orlando that was written by feminist and social justice warrior, Amanda Marcotte. This inanity of Cohen's article is a work of genius compared to Marcotte's. Entitled, "4 Pro-Gun Arguments We're Sick of Hearing", it continues Rolling Stone's ongoing agenda to destabilize the American society and replace it with a socialist utopia.
As the title describes, the article provides four pro-gun arguments which Marcotte attempts to destroy. But she unwittingly destroyed her own argument by displaying her ignorance of common sense, let alone anything that is based on fact.
Let's review Marcotte's article, one pro-gun argument at a time.
1. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
The very first objection Amanda puts forth isn't based on fact, but emotion. The last time I checked, a gun of any kind can't just get up by itself and kill anyone. Someone had to obtain the weapon, learn how to shoot it, think about the person(s) they wanted to kill, find them and put all of that knowledge into action. By Amanda's logic, no one should be allowed to own a car, rope, knife, Louisville Slugger, or even water. Either way, if someone has the intent to kill, they're going to find a way with or without a gun.
So, say it with me, Amanda - Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Period.
2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Of all the gun owners I've even known, I've never heard any of them say this. Marcotte would like you to think that there hasn't been an example of an armed civilian that stopped an active shooter.
If Marcotte had done as much as a Google search, she could have fact-checked her statement about law-abiding citizens stopping gun-wielding murderers thereby saving herself the embarrassment of looking like a complete fool.
But let's suppose that Amanda's right. Even if her premise was true, take into consideration the fact that places where mass shootings occur have the tightest gun restrictions. If a law-abiding citizen were allowed to carry weapons in those places, there wouldn't be as many people shot dead as a result of a gunmen that has lost his mind. Why should Marcotte or any other liberal be shocked when shooters go for the softest targets where no one can shoot back because of the laws their braindead legislators passed won't allow them to?
Marcotte is hoping that her readers are stupid and lazy enough to do their own research to verify if she is telling the truth. I am happy to disappoint you, Amanda.
Examples of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns can be found here, here, and here. One of which just happened last month. Almost all of them happened in the past 30 years, Amanda.
Oh, by the way - there are some reports that it took the Orlando Police Department three hours to respond, Amanda. If someone inside Pulse had a firearm, there may have been fewer lives lost on June 12, 2016 in Orlando, FL. And if anyone should garner at least some of the blame for what happened in Orlando, the FBI definitely deserves some. They've received multiple warnings about Mateen years before June 12, not to mention the fact that he was their terrorist watch list. Funny that they took him off.
3. "But, mental health!"
Law-abiding citizens who are of sound mind and body do not arm themselves to the teeth and spray bullets, Amanda. How else should address the mental state of assassins, Amanda? Cuddle them and tell them it's not their fault?
4. "Second Amendment, baby!"
Shortly after I started my blog, there was a shooting in Pittsburgh in which three police officers were killed. This one hit close to home because I'm from the Pittsburgh area. I was inspired to write a blog post about this shooting in which I questioned if the Second Amendment should be repealed, not unlike Cohen's premise.
But the more educated I become about the nature of mass shootings and the frequent failure of gun laws that are supposed to protect us, the more I'm convinced that concealed carry is a viable option for stopping active shooters. So much to the point, that I'm actually considering arming myself. Which is a tremendously huge decision for me. My wife is vehemently against guns in any way, shape or form, other than using rifles for putting food on the table. But primarily because I have a boy that loves getting into places and touching things he knows that he shouldn't. These two reasons are the only ones that have prevented me from purchasing a firearm.
What's that? I don't own a gun? You mean, I'm not a gun-crazed lunatic like this troglodyte?
No, I don't own a gun and I have more respect for my flag and country than Ted Nugent ever dreamed of.
But this line from Amanda's article astounds me the most:
"But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining down death on random strangers."
The irony here is thick like a stinky cologne.
First, notice that Amanda nailed the problem right on the head in the last sentence without her even realizing it. Because we all know that people that who happen to not be maladjusted are in dire need of psychiatric treatment and should be banned owning guns. But I have to ask - do you know how many gun laws are on the books, Amanda? The short answer is over 16,000. And how many of those gun laws did Omar Mateen observe on June 12, 2016? Yep. You guessed it; zero.
So, when are you going to realize that the Dylann Roofs and Omar Mateens of the world don't give a flying shit about law, Amanda? And when are you going to learn that soft targets like Pulse night club, a place where guns are strictly prohibited, attract active shooters like moths to flame?
Orlando, FL. Charleston, SC. Aurora, CO. Blacksburg, VA. San Bernardino, CA.
Newtown.
How are those gun laws working for you, Amanda?
No comments:
Post a Comment