Ban the Second Amendment? Sure, If You Love Violence
Rick Moran writes that we should ban the Second Amendment if we truly want gun control.
The only real solution is to repeal the Second Amendment, make most guns illegal, and give anyone who commits a crime with a gun a life sentence if convicted. Banning the sale, distribution, and ownership of handguns, assault weapons, large clip handguns, etc. plus locking away the criminal element that uses guns would put a big dent in violent crime — maybe.
As a former civilian disarmament supporter, I know Rick is right on one point: “Gun control” is a façade, a scam; the true goal is civilian disarmament. Let’s all stop kidding ourselves on that point.
Let’s assume Rick’s talking somewhat tongue in cheek on this, because here’s the facts. Australia and Britain banned guns in 1997. Violent crime skyrocketed over the next 10 years. The leading crime category was rape of women. Meanwhile, rape has been declining here in America, where a law-abiding woman can buy a handgun in order to participate in her civil right of self-defense. British women get raped twice as often, and Australian women thrice as often, as American women. I document this all in my book 400 Years of Gun Control.
So what gun banners want is to sacrifice women for the sake of feeling good that we did something about “gun violence.” Curious that those most stridently promoting civilian disarmament usually pretend that they care about women’s rights.
But over 10 years later, getting a gun on the streets of London is easier than ever.
And of course, the government that controls both the purse and the sword also controls the crime data they release. Gun crime is much higher that the UK government wants us to believe.
And there’s nothing to stop murderers from killing, gun or no. Britain’s murder rate hasn’t declined after all.
But don’t worry, there’s still one way government can pretend crime is down: close police stations. If there’s no cop around for victims to file a report, that crime effectively never happened.
So there they are, over 10 years later, and people are still killing, raping, assaulting. And decent people have no way to stop them. Of course, the government wonks will always have their own protection. So in the end, banning guns leads us back to feudalism: the few elites control the arms, resources, and political power; the rest of humanity living in fear for their lives from both the criminals on the streets and those running the country.
And we can add: the guy who is 6’5″ , 250 pounds, and works out like crazy … gets back his advantage in the fight to survive.
The weak, the sick, the old, women in general ( no offense intended, I know you can get strong, the point is another)… not so much advantage…
So we get back to the stone age.
That’s the wonderful future, the promised land of the totalitarians.
A world of power and brute force.
Men have about 40% more lean muscle mass, on average. That’s not sexist, it’s biology, genetics. It’s just reality. Considering statistics, you will always find outliers: Women with unusual strength, skilled martial artists. But the data speaks for itself: When you outlaw guns, women pay an inordinate price.
Isn’t modern liberalism such fun?
For the record, Rick Moran was being sarcastic. He’s updated his post to spell it out. It kind of takes away from the effort at irony but it needed to be done as the effort, while sincere, was clearly not successful.
I believed so from the start, which is why I encouraged people to see it as tongue in cheek. Otherwise, Rick would likely be working elsewhere, nor did I suggest he should.
On the other hand, for those who want to live in a “gun-free” country, there are many choices available. So folks, if you don’t like the Second Amendment and the personal responsibility it implies, why don’t you move someplace where you’ll be happier?
And also for the record Howard, you’re post makes great points. Thanks.
One response I have to people who want to ban guns is; many of the multi-victim shootings involved people with mental health issues, obviously not everyone with mental health problems will become a mass murderer – but wouldn’t we all be safer if we simply locked up everyone who had mental problems?
(of course, I don’t support the above “solution” anymore than I support taking guns away from people who haven’t done anything wrong with them.)
Sure, can we start with people who demand that law-abiding citizens give up their civil right of self-defense?
One problem: Do you want the current crop of prostiticians, writing laws enforced by the current judicial system, to decide who’s mentally ill enough to lock up? After all, some think wanting a gun is a mental illness. Hey, we had Homeland Insecurity putting returning war vets on a terrorist watch list, simply because they might be too patriotic to the Constitution and not loyal enough to the regime.
O.K. Ban the 2nd Amendment. Why stop there! Why not ban those amendments, articles and sections the New Left thinks reprehensible!
Well, where do We The Elite People of Washinton DC’s culture of corruption wish to start cherry pickin’ USA’s Constitution?
Article V-Amendment Procedure would be a great starting point.
Article 1, Section 10 – Contracts, interference by states would be another great one to ban.
How’s about Amendment 14, Section 1 Due Process of Law (just toss out America’s TORT system and go for kangaroo courts -street corner justice is quicker, economic and least onerous for all involved…just hang the SOB).
See, knee-jerk reactions to dismantle America’s Foundation will leave a vacuum and lead to anarchy…just what the New Left has been aiming for since early 1900′s…destroy Americas capitalistic system of economic/social and governance.
Remember always: Golden Rule #1 He who has the Gold…Rules. Golden Rule #2 Absolute Power…Corrupts Absolutely.Pray. Amen.
A Challenge to Utopian Delusional Dreamers
Every time there’s such a shooting, we get predictable knee jerk responses: Extreme examples: “Ban All Guns”. “Repeal the 2nd Amendment”. (see Constitution – Article 5 & LOTSA LUCK with that). Less extreme: “To balance our safety with gun rights, the interests of society must now override “individual” rights to own guns”. Sorry, but they lost that argument in the Supreme Court: “Heller v DC”. & again in “McDonald v Chicago”. Yet they continue believing in their Wet Dream Fantasy of either a gun free society or one in which such occasional shootings can be prevented. But what they NEVER explain is HOW they’d implement this Utopian dream. Yes: In a Perfect world there would also be no crime, violence, war, poverty, disease, hunger, income taxes or email spam. Well, perhaps the last 2 are a bit much to hope for. But we don’t live anywhere near “Perfect”. It’s not even on the map. So once again I offer this challenge to Delusional Wet Dreamers. Explain in PRACTICAL, REALISTIC terms how you’d implement this fantasy, short of rescinding the 2nd Amd. (Lotsa Luck here). See Article 5 of the Constitution to understand the process: Then there’s the “Inconvenient Truth” of 90 Million gun owners, 325+ Million registered guns, plus an estimated additional 200 Million unregistered guns in civilian hands. 1 in 3 homes has a gun. And these numbers grow rapidly in reaction to Obozos re-election. There’s now an estimated HALF BILLION+ privately owned guns. Yet these delusional dreamers continue believing such a society can be either peacefully disarmed, or can be socially “engineered” to prevent such occasional shootings. DREAM ON! Yes. There IS a social cost for an Armed, Free society. DEAL WITH IT! Don’t like it? You’re free to move.
For years I’ve offered the above challenge. So far no one’s been up to it. And once again we hear from these delusional dreamers only …….. SILENCE!
Why are we NOT surprised?
Note: Those responding to my comments with FACTS, REASON & LOGIC get a response. Ad Hominem attacks are IGNORED. Exceptions: Politicians always fair game for Personal attacks.
The Newtown, Connecticut school shooting has re ignited the gun control issue. There has been continuous coverage of the this tragedy; now into its 3 day. On 12/11 a man killed two people at the Clackamas Town Center in Portland, Oregon and a person with a CCW permit, 22-year-old Nick Meli, pulled out his firearm, confronted the man and the killer committed suicide; no shots were fired by Mr. Meli. The mall owners do not allow citizens to carry on its property. We will never know how many would have been killed had Mr. Meli not been armed. None of the MSM reports I viewed even mention what Mr. Meli did. To my knowledge, the media has not presented this hero to the American citizenry. Why is that?http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen?amp;no_cache=1355643931
10 years after citizens were disarmed in Great Britain, there are still firearm associated killings, rapes, assaults. But decent people have no way to stop them. Of course, the government wonks will always have their own protection. So in the end, banning guns leads us back to feudalism: the few elites control the arms, resources, and political power; the rest of humanity lives in fear for their lives from both the criminals on the streets and those running the country.
The Newtown, Connecticut school shooting has re ignited the gun control issue. There has been continuous coverage of the this tragedy; now into its 3 day. On 12/11 a man killed two people at the Clackamas Town Center in Portland, Oregon and a person with a CCW permit, 22-year-old Nick Meli, pulled out his firearm, confronted the man and the killer committed suicide; no shots were fired by Mr. Meli. The mall owners do not allow citizens to carry on its property. We will never know how many would have been killed had Mr. Meli not been armed. None of the MSM reports I viewed even mention what Mr. Meli did. To my knowledge, the media has not presented this hero to the American citizenry. Why is that?http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen?amp;no_cache=1355643931
10 years after citizens were disarmed in Great Britain, there are still firearm associated killings, rapes, assaults. But decent people have no way to stop them. Of course, the government wonks will always have their own protection. So in the end, banning guns leads us back to feudalism: the few elites control the arms, resources, and political power; the rest of humanity lives in fear for their lives from both the criminals on the streets and those running the country.
As a Jewess in the US, I say: When the liberals took God out of school, they invited Satan in! NOW is the time when all REAL Americans must put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! And remember that America wasn’t won with a registered gun! -Wendy Weinbaum
Those who wish to repeal the Second Amendment would face a real nightmare should they get their way.
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
Every American instincively knows that, and those with guns just hain’t a-gonna give ‘em up.
The 1 question NOT addressed re 2nd Amd repeal is: HOW to do it?
Yes. Procedures to amend Constitution are given in Article 5. But this overlooks the REAL issue: …. how to get 2/3 vote of legislators of required 38 States to vote for its’ repeal. Arguably,12 – 13 Liberal controlled States would vote in the affirmative, leaving 25 to 26 Very Pro gun States. States like TX, GA, AL, MS, LA…….
And you need ALL to convene a Constitutional convention to change any part of the Constitution. Getting concurrence from all these States is Liberals Fantasy Wet Dream. NEVER HAPPEN!
Those who would repeal the Second Amendment would face a real nightmare were they to be successful.
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
Do you think armed Americans don’t KNOW that?
“Those who are willing to trade Freedom for security deserve neither.”
Benjamin Franklin
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.
This preamble in this sentance talks about a Militia from the standpoint of the founding fathers not trusting in any government. The right to bear arms in their context is a right of the people to protect themselves from an opressive government that no longer bends to the will of the people. That is why the amendment is in the Constitution. It is there to allow us to protect ourselves from our own government.
What was the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power in Germany? They took up all the guns. After that was accomplished, they had free reign to do whatever they pleased and they did. Because there was no armed opposition they created the most heinous, repressive regime that has ever existed. And they were responsible for the deaths of some 50 million people in World War II.
It is a terrible thing that some individuals use guns to commit evil. But, a gun is neither evil or good. It is simply a tool. One can use a chainsaw to cut fire wood to heat one’s house or cut off their neighbors head. Does that mean we should ban chainsaws?