A FEW WORDS ON ‘GUN’ CONTROL
We here at TMQ2 have written about “gun” control many times.
It’s no secret that we’re against any infringement upon the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the US Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people (you and me) to keep and bear arms.
This great amendment was not written into the Constitution so we could shoot burglars or go hunting. It was written into the Constitution so we could overthrow any tyrannical government—like the one we currently have in Washington — and to shoot burglars.
Before I proceed, please allow me to back up a bit and tell you that I am a former military man (Army Intelligence, US Cavalry). I’m now a DAVPRM (look it up).
Because of my military training and experience, I cringe when I hear the ignorant ‘gun’ control cowards droning on, parroting what they hear about ‘guns’ from other pundits rather than doing any research themselves.
One of the first things the military taught me about firearms was that my rifle was never to be referred to as my ‘gun’. My gun, the ever-so-patient drill sergeant explained, was in my pants and used to shoot urine out of my body. And I learned the ages-old cadence and sang it while alternately touching my rifle and my gun:
“This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun….”
I hear the ‘gun’ control pundits calling semi-automatic firearms automatics and vice versa. I hear them referring to magazines as clips and clips as magazines. And I’d bet not one of them could tell you whether the newer versions of the Vietnam-era M16 and M4 rifles with both semiautomatic and three-round burst actions are automatic or semiautomatic (Hint: The military did away with the fully automatic models for general use in the 1980s).
A lot of the misinformation (disinformation) they receive about firearms is what they see on TV — Hollywood’s exaggerated capacity of firearms, like 30-round magazines somehow miraculously firing 500 rounds before the actors exchange what they call “clips”, or six-shooters firing dozens of rounds before reloading. These are the same Hollywood actors who call the Cavalry “the Calvary”; one being a branch of the army, the other being the area where Jesus was purportedly crucified.
Because of all this ‘gun’ nonsense, today I had a revelation, a catharsis, an epiphany. It was akin to a dose of silent-but-deadly flatulence. The kind that suddenly assaults and instantly overwhelms your unsuspecting olfactory glands, bringing whatever you were doing or saying to a screeching halt. And, yes, I chose this metaphor because I find ‘gun’ control nuts and the aforementioned flatulence equally disgusting. But I can fight back against ‘gun’ control nuts while nobody can fight back against s-b-d flatulence, except to say, “Payback’s a bitch!”, but it never is.
I realized the ‘gun’ control pundits are swimming in a plethora of ignorance and racked with fear — the fear of being shot — and these are two of the main elements fueling their attempts to control firearms (notice I didn’t write ‘guns’). Believe me, there are things much worse than being shot, like a maniac bashing your skull in with a hammer. The likelihood of the latter happening is almost twice as great as being shot by a criminal. Applying the illogical reasoning of ‘gun’ control pundits, shouldn’t we ban hammers?
According to the FBI:
“There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.”
Self-evident is the hysteria that drives ‘gun’ control morons.
Note: There are those who want to take away our arms so they can take full control of our lives and freedoms, scheming evildoers, New World Order maniacs, but I’ll deal with them another time. Here, I’m addressing the cowardly geniuses who actually believe that taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the amount of criminals using firearms while committing crimes, even in the face of overwhelming data that proves just the opposite. These are the very same MENSA candidates who voted Obama into office… twice!
Here’s an excerpt from a goofy article I read today:
New Illinois ‘assault’ weapons ban calls for registration
SPRINGFIELD – Inspired by the violent pre-Christmas massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, Illinois Senate Democrats on Wednesday advanced bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips…
There’s no such thing as “high-capacity ammunition clips”. Go ahead and ban them and I’ll keep my high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Imagine being arrested for having high-capacity ammunition clips, but in court, you prove you only had high-capacity ammunition magazines. Case dismissed! Then you could sue the police department for false arrest. I certainly would.
The point is, ‘gun’ control cowards don’t know anything about firearms. They just want all firearms and their accompanying paraphernalia taken away from whomever possesses them, our rights be damned.
Ask yourself, if you were in a position to ban something, don’t you think it would be incumbent upon you to at least know something other than slang and heresay about what it is you’re attempting to ban?
This diagram explains the difference between a clip and a magazine. Click on it to enlarge… and pay attention!
I say we ban ‘gun’ banning. But whatever we do, let’s at least start out by banning high-capacity clip and ‘gun’-banning banners and bannerettes. Then let’s ban anybody trying to ban anything. Then let’s ban the word ban.
This, or we could just shoot anybody who tries to take away our firearms. Wait… that’s what the Second Amendment is for. Okay, so that’s it. We shoot anybody who tries to violate our rights by taking away our firearms—ANYBODY!
The law is on our side unless we sit on our sixes and let these cowards swing the law in the other direction. Believe me, they’re burning the midnight oil while plotting to strip us of our firearms.
Military veterans know one thing for sure. If you lose your weapon while in combat, you’re dead. The same goes for victims of certain crimes. With no weapon to protect yourself, you’re dead.
Just because veterans are now civilians does not mean they feel any differently about firearms. When I first departed the armed forces, I felt naked and vulnerable without my firearm. I would feel the same way now. Millions of Americans feel strongly about their right to bear arms. Any threat to this right will likely encounter a return threat that would go something like this:
“Go ahead. Come try to take my firearms away. We’ll party! You can have them… bullets first!”
Or as Ann Coulter wrote: “Let’s all Surrender Our Weapons — You First!”
With all of this noted, here’s where the rubber meets the road:
The ‘gun’ control cowards should be more afraid of attempting to take our firearms away than living with the fact that we have them and are going to keep them no matter what illegal changes are pushed through the system.
Ironically, their worst fear (being shot) could very well come true simply because their fear drove them to violate our rights, thereby forcing us to defend our rights and ourselves against them.
To sum it up using military terminology, their actions could be tantamount to walking directly into our fields of fire.