self-defense is a natural right. The 2nd Amendment is not really a natural right, but Napolitano is saying that it was brought on as an extension of that natural right to self-defense and personal sovereignty. That I am my own person.
Gun-grabbers throw out that “then every gun owner wants to own a tank or F18 fighter jet, etx, blah blah to fight the gov’t” -or- “What use is your rifle against tanks, drones, etc.”
First, yeah, I actually do know people who wouldn’t mind owning an M1A1 Abrams tank. They also know that it’s impossible, and not because of laws, but by simple economics and training. Say that you could buy an M1A1 tank as easily as you can buy a Hyunda Accent. There’s a tank dealership right down the road. How exactly is someone going to afford, or even finance a $4.3 million dollar tank? I mean really. It’s a fantasy world dream. No one will buy one, and the dealership will go belly-up. Same thing with jets, drones, etc. Lets not even talk about where you’re going to store your depleted uranium sabot rounds.
How will we fight against a tyranical government? Uhmmm… we won’t, not until armed civilians in massive massive numbers with massive co-ordination get together and decide to do it. Until then, simple gov’t local law enforcement can and does take out small pockets of resistance today, commonly known as armed criminals.
The whole, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” is simple chest thumping and bravado. Gun-nutz talking of civil wars…pffft. No. Too many rely on gov’t infrastructure to deliver bread to the local supermarket, supermarkets rely on oil and electricity, oil and electricity rely on gov’t infrastructure, all rely on the federal reserve note we call a dollar. Do people actually think they’ll take to the hills, go native, and live off the land fighting the gov’t? Trading bullets and corn in some weird barter system?
Would the outcome been different in Poland. First off, it was a different time then, as it is now. I don’t know, but we do know what the effect was when they didn’t fight back. Did Poland have an army, tank factories? Would it have changed history? Doubt it. It’s all speculation. But I will say, their lack of self-defense, whether it was given up or taken, did them no favors.
In the 1770’s, colonists had the same weaponry as the british army. Going forward, through the decades, we see that military industrial complex outpacing what civilians could use/afford. In the 1940’s, tanks, planes, steel battleships. 2013, drones, smart bombs, apc tanks, helicopters, men, and money.
Could 80 million gun owners rise up, co-ordinate, and fight a tyranical gov’t. Uhmm… no, and if they could, to what end? to start over? USA ver. 2.0?
Most gun owners use the 2nd amendment (to insure a free state, the right for citizens to bear arms, fight against a tyranical gov’t, etc) to guarantee their right to use guns for their natural right of self-protection. The 2nd amendment right does not grant me the right to hunt, sportsmanship shooting, or even self-defense. Self-defense is a natural right that cannot be bestowed on me nor taken away from me by gov’t written on some 200 year old document.
When someone tells me I cannot have a gun, you are effectively telling me I do not have the right to protect myself. You are taking my gun (by force of laws), but in no way taking the gun of a person (a criminal who does not follow the law) who has the intent of doing me harm.
There is a responsibility to owning a gun. Some take it seriously, other do not. 80 million households with guns, and gun-grabbers would think that half of them would have shot themselves yestarday by rage or accident. 40 million deaths over night would be something but it didn’t happen. Instead we had 34,000 total gun deaths in 2011. Out of 34k, 11k due to homicide not including suicide or accidents. Out of 80 million households that have guns, 300,000,000 firearms in public circulation, thats a pretty tiny number of deaths. 34,000 lives gone. Shoot outs between criminals, suicides, family and friend accidents, murders, homicides. 310,000,000 million people = Shit happens. Sounds callous, but it is what it is.
The AR-15 rifle attributes to a statisical nothing in all gun deaths, but it’s the low hanging fruit. It’s the feel good measure of 2013, so somehow… in some weird logic, a rifle that accounts for something like .005% of gun deaths, that banning it will somehow effectively reduce the 99.995% of all gun deaths in any measurable way. Does that even make sense when you look at the numbers?
Why do you need an AR-15? That’s the arguement I hear ALL THE TIME. My arguement is, “Why don’t you have an AR-15?”. Statistically, it’s the SAFEST of all firearms.
