Quote of the day
Then they focused on our second amendment rights. Using classic advertisement schemes they scared us into believing that if we possessed a firearm our children would shoot each other and criminals would shoot us with our own weapon. Instead of respecting firearms and caring for them properly, we have been scared into believing we just can’t handle them.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:54 am
But if someone is a hired gun by the government, all of the anti-gun incompetency suddenly goes away? Our employees are OK with guns, but not the citizens for whom they serve? Since when, does the employer ask the employee what he or she may do?
July 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I found the following “The Real Reason for Gun Ownership” by The Company of Freemen which elaborates on my previous comment and is really well-said:
“When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly “government by the people” why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?”
“The usual answer – stripped of equivocation – is that ‘mere citizens’ are half-witted children, incapable of safely handling “dangerous” commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be “allowed” to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.”
“Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn’t it? That’s how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time.”
July 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I always ask anti-gunners why it is important to them that I be helpless and defenseless if they mean me no harm.
Most just mumble and leave the debate, a few have said because I don’t want you to harm me. To which I reply “I have always owned guns and I haven’t harmed you yet, nor am I campaigning to make you helpless, which of us would seem to have the purer intentions?”
July 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Straightarrow,
Great question which I will remember to use with anti-gunners.
And anti-gunners want to make us helpless and defenseless by having hired guns do it for them. Why is that IF they are anti-gun?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm