What if they had a gun?
So this week Obama in his usual way, suggested more pointless regulations against guns…because the so-called Constitutional professor doesn’t seem to grasp the Supreme Court making it quite clear the 2nd Amendment details an individual right that does not come with many exceptions. Granted what Barry proposed was within the letter of the law, even though it is entirely antithetical to the spirit of the law (but that has been the last seven years so many times hasn’t it?). And that’s just not my opinion, those over at the Heritage Foundation seem to agree that while all of these will face still (and usually successful) legal challenges, the proposals themselves are within the letter of the law:
None of these proposals are legally problematic, as any president remains free to provide guidance to federal agencies and to ask Congress to appropriate money to fund his priorities. Indeed, gun rights proponents have long been urging the president to update and improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which was the impetus behind, for example, the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2008.
Now this does bring up the larger problems that we clearly have given too much power to the office of the Presidency for it to act within the letter of the law, but that is something we can put off for another blog. Right now we’re dealing with the stupidity of gun control that is such an important issue, the dimwit-in-chief feels the need to smear onion paste on his eyes. (Barry, we hated it when Boehner was crying, and we agreed with him on the issues—what made you think it would make your argument look better?)
But the central argument of the left, clearly bereft of facts, is that “If we can save one life, it’s worth banning all the guns?”
But that brings up a significant question, if we can take it to one extreme and delusionally believe that no guns “would save one life” (wouldn’t it would actually make it safer to be a criminal) we should ask…what if every law abiding citizen had a gun?
I mean when you think about it, if every single law abiding citizen had a gun what would the world look like (hey if we have thought experiments about what would happen if no law abiding citizen had a gun…we can certainly look at the opposite side).
Granted we could look at individuals and detail how many murders or rapes could have been stopped by the victims having guns, but that is a little crass to look at individual cases (although it still brings a smile to my face to imagine O.J. with a large caliber bullet hole in his head)…but we can also admit that individuals with guns have ended a lot of potential mass shootings without any what?
So rather than looking at individuals let’s look at some larger scales
Oh sure we could go for the obvious one about what if Germany hadn’t outlawed Jews from having guns…but we all know that one.
Populations that do not have weapons can’t fight back and we see that over and over through history. This is why one of the hallmarks of Jim Crow laws in the South were restricting gun ownership among blacks. Who would need 40 acres and a mule if every former slave had a Henry rifle and 40 rounds. You know what makes a great target, a white sheet illuminated by crossfire light…in fact when you’re that obvious you make an easy, and very dead, target. If every freed slave had been given 40 rounds and a Henry rifle instead of 40 acres and a mule, you would have seen a more economically just system and a lot of idiots in sheets with gaping holes in their chests. It’s the same reason why defeated Indian tribes were forced to give up their arms after being defeated and the same reason why the British kept arms out of the hands of the populace in India. Armed populations can fight back against encroaching tyranny, unarmed populations cannot. Had the freed slaves been armed the Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century would never had been needed because they would have defended their civil rights far earlier and through a heavy use of lead and bred racism out of the population. (Added bonus with so many dead Klansmen, you would never see the return of the group the Klan that was the military wing of …the Democratic Party).
Or perhaps we could look at a whole nation where the populace wasn’t exactly well armed to begin with. Now the history of China is one of corrupt government after another, the kind that would never trust their people with guns (unlike Switzerland where everyone has a gun…remind me how many times they’ve been successfully invaded?). But what if after realizing they were being taken advantage of by British in the Opium Wars they decided to shift the balance of power by making sure everyone in their nation was armed (I realize it’s a crazy idea, but go with me). What would have been the result of an armed population when the Japanese Imperial Army decided to invade in the 1930’s. Nanking would still have been one of the great massacres of human history…but in this case it would be a massacre of fascists. (Not to mention that Mao’s army would never have been able to violate rights over the population of the country). We have the Rape of Manchuria as a great crime of history because people were not able to respond to invasion.
But that’s just a political issue. What about the mass shootings? How we stop those? Well history, even recent history shows that armed people stop mass shooters. But as hard as this is let’s go to something recent. Let’s say Paris was as heavily armed as your average town in Texas. Would the Paris massacre have really happened? Probably, psychos are crazy, but the death toll would be in the low double not the low triple digits.
But that’s just personal issues, and ones dealing with invaders, and mass shootings…surely there is some problem with an armed populace.
Okay let’s look at something just a few years ago when the populace of Iran tried to rise up against their corrupt government. What if the US had done the right thing and sent them arms, money, and training? Simple the Ayatollah’s head would be in a noose and then we would not have an Iran on the verge of instigating nuclear holocaust.
I could go on but an intelligent person should see that no matter the situation, people being armed will always lead to a better chance of the innocent to stop people who may use any weapon against the innocent. It’s a simple fact of reality: when innocent people are armed they are less likely to be victims.
(Terrible movie, correct view of the world.)