“Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with guns — and the more widely guns are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur”

As a rational human being, you may have wondered exactly what gun control advocates mean when they use the term “common sense” to describe their desire to restrict access to guns for law-abiding citizens of the United States. How can abridging a right that the founding fathers made abridge-proof (for the common good) be common sense? An editorial at baltimoresun.com penned by Firmin DeBrabander [above, bottom] gives us a clue. In fact, the Chairman of the Humanistic Studies Department at the Maryland Institute College of Art provides the clearest explanation I’ve yet encountered of gun control advocates’ Orwellian doublespeak . . .

I have long noticed this kind of Manichean language emanating from the guns rights camp. The world is divided into good and evil; there are bad people in it, and we need to let the good people be armed so they can defend their families, etc.

This is fallacious thinking. The world is typically not black and white but many shades of grey. Good people sometimes do bad things, and bad people sometimes do good things. Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with guns — and the more widely guns are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur. This is no vain speculation, just the law of averages.

Common sense tells us this much, but it seems our society increasingly resists common sense on the gun debate. Can we imagine elementary schoolteachers with guns behind their desks? Seriously? What’s wrong with us? No civil society worthy of the name should need armed teachers.

So if we don’t give guns to good people, less bad shit will happen. Makes sense—provided you ignore anything remotely resembling a statistical analysis of the problem. Or close your eyes to the wider context of personal liberty and responsibility that gun ownership entails.

Which reminds me: what is the “problem” in question? I’d like a little more to go on than the term “bad decisions.” And what’s the issue with armed teachers? The fact that they’re armed or the fact that they need to be armed? How is society responsible for the rare occurrence of homicidal psychopaths attacking a school with a gun or, as is sometimes the case, a knife or machete?

But hey, if we’re going to use fuzzy logic—sorry “common sense” to analyze the negative effects of gun ownership, I’d like to point out that the number of “good” people who commit crimes with guns is precisely zero. If an individual commits a crime, they’re not a good person. See how that works?

If DeBrabander is talking about good people with guns creating negligent discharges—which he isn’t but I thought I’d throw it in—you can round down that statistical possibility amongst legal gun owners to zero. Speaking of sacrificing facts on the altar of emotion, it’s interestingly to note that a big chunk of America: armed and dangerous focuses on shame.

With its refusal to even sit at the same table with people who have doubts about broad gun ownership — combined with its push to get guns onto college campuses — the NRA has signaled that it is taking its crusade to a higher level: It aims to remove any shame, awkwardness or modesty associated with gun ownership. Sitting at the same table with gun safety advocates? Well, that might send the message that there is something still potentially abnormal or embarrassing in owning and carrying guns of any caliber.

On the one hand, who can blame the NRA? Any lobby worth its salt should fight to remove shame attached to its object of devotion. But with respect to gun ownership, I’d argue, shame and modesty are still very much in need. If the NRA succeeds in disassociating those qualities entirely from gun ownership, caution will vanish, too, I fear. And clearly, caution is already in too short supply. How is expanded gun toting supposed to reverse that trend?

Did I mention that Mr. DeBrabander’s c.v. indicates that he’s Catholic? As a Jew, I know the central role shame can play in religion. Although intended as a moral compass, it’s all too often used as an instrument of psychological and yes physical repression. There is no shame in protecting your life with a firearm. But it is a shame that Jews and Catholics are often at the forefront of gun control.

Of course, culture’s got something to do with it too.

Many journalists have been awestruck by the civility of Japanese citizens following the devastating earthquake and tsunami this month. Incredibly, there has been no looting or stealing, though many lack shelter, food and water. Instead, journalists report, people form orderly lines when relief services appear.

That is the sign of a truly civil society, and it requires no wide-scale arming of the population. The gun lobby is driving us headlong into an apocalyptic society, by contrast. It is time for reason to reclaim the debate.

Hey, Firmin. I agree. We must view our gun rights through the prism of reason and rational analysis. You first.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

47 Responses to “Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with guns — and the more widely guns are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur”

  1. avatar2yellowdogs says:

    If gun ownership is abnormal and embarrassing, I don’t want to be right. And I pray that Firmin is never put in a position where he has to protect that cute little kid on his shoulders.

    Oh, and while there are still good people in the world, we really need to restrict the availability of automobiles in this country. The fewer cars we have around, the less chance that those good people (you know, all of those silly simpletons that can barely tie their own shoes…the ones for whom those in government and academia – like Firmin – need to watch out for) will make bad decisions resulting in 30K+ deaths each year.

    Where would we be without our intellectual and moral betters telling us what to do? Thank you, Firmin, for taking time out of your day pontificating to a lecture hall full of undergrads to make it clear how morally bankrupt we (and this country) are. I can only imagine how busy you must otherwise be, struggling with the women’s studies and sociology departments for scarce university resources and ensuring that young skulls full of mush are prepared for a post-modern, post-American world. From the bottom of our unworthy hearts, thank you.

  2. avatarMagoo says:

    I am in rough basic agreement with DeBrander, sort of, but strongly disagree with the “shame, awkwardness or modesty” part. As a gun enthusiast myself, I feel no shame in owning firearms. The terms I have in mind are respect, circumspection, and caution. These are the required attitudes to possess firearms and use them safely.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see these qualities in sufficient magnitude among the current breed of gun loons who seek to “normalize” firearms in society. There are too many range commandos and mall ninjas among you for for my comfort. I find the juvenile fascination with violence and raw firepower, the outlaw, anti-social mentality, and the enthusiasm for vigilantism disturbing. I don’t want your so-called “protection” out on the street. I’m sure we’re better off without it.

    I like you guys, so I will tell you straight and I hope you take it to heart. If I knew anyone who was on the fence on what to think about the civilian carry movement, I would simply direct them to this website. Once they see for themselves the attitudes toward society and firearms on daily display here, their minds will be made up. If they are given the chance to have any say about it, they’ll say no guns for you. In this regard, you guys are your own worst enemies. You work too hard to live up to your stereotypes.

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/ok-rifle-association-open-letter-slams-open-carry-bill/#comments

      “If I were king of the world, males between the ages of 14 and 24 would be kept in 55-gal. drums and fed through the bung holes until the age of graduation. Consider how many social problems would essentially cease to exist with this one simple albeit draconian measure.”

      You call us anti-social, violent, juvenile.

      Yet you want us sodomized and isolated from society “for the greater good.”

      You are nothing more than a hypocrite.

      Every time you sound off here, I will remind EVERYONE of what you are.

      You also don’t have much proof for all of your assertions of “juvenile fascination with violence and raw firepower, the outlaw, anti-social mentality, and the enthusiasm for vigilantism” let alone “range commandos and mall ninjas”

      • avatarRalph says:

        In Magoo land, only Magoo is qualified to own a gun. That’s not hypocracy. That’s hubris.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        Is it beyond your comprehension that the “barrel raising” of young males is a very old joke from the earliest days of American pioneer life? Are you familiar with the concept of “tongue in cheek”? Or of what is known as satire, as in Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”? Do you have any sense of humor whatsoever? Seriously: Do you honestly think you have on the table before you an earnest proposal to house human beings in drums? Really? Is that who I am talking to here?

        BTW, I haven’t suggested “sodomizing” anyone, either seriously or in jest. The aperture and fitting (currently 51mm and threaded, in olden days taking a particular kind of stopper) at the end of a drum is properly termed a “bung hole.” You are obviously thinking of another, slang usage of the term.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          You could have at least explained it more thoroughly in that thread. As a Vietnamese gun owner, I wouldn’t know THAT much about American history.

          “Do you have any sense of humor whatsoever?”

          Take a really good guess. Some people laugh at people slipping on banana peels. Some people only laugh if George Bush slips on a banana peel. Some people think George Carlin is hilarious and others don’t.

          Sorry, but I don’t give a shit if I live up to your high-falutin’ standards of “enlightenment.”

          Given your condescension as of late, why else do you think some people reacted that way?

        • avatarRalph says:

          Don’t let ‘em get you down, Magoo. You might be a half a troll, but you’re our half a troll and we love ya. Mikey? Not so much.

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      You also don’t have much proof for all of your assertions, either.

    • avatarAnon says:

      Such discrimination, stereotyping, and intolerance. Why, it’s almost like you know you don’t have a case, but you think if you scream loudly enough, no one else’ll notice…

      Suffice to say, you’re wrong and demonstrably so – as the saying goes, “We’re winning,” and our rights and freedoms are moving forward every day, *precisely* because of their normalization. Unfortunately, I fear fudds like you appreciate none of that, and would give it all back if allowed half the chance – sorry, champ, but individual rights’re here to stay, especially if you don’t like them.

  3. avatarotalps says:

    I wonder if he feels shameful about the contents of his silverware drawer.

  4. avatarRalph says:

    Whoa. What’s that goofy looking thing growing out of the kid’s crotch?

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Reminds me of a joke: A guy walks into a bar with a duck on his head. The duck says to the bartender, “Hey can you get this guy off my ass?”

      • avatarRalph says:

        Oy, Brad, did you shank that one. Here’s the way it goes:

        A man walks into a bar with a duck on his head. The bartender sees the duck on the guy’s head and asks “how the hell did that happen?” And the duck answers “dunno. It started out as a pimple on my ass.”

  5. avatarJohn says:

    “Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with CARS / MOTORCYCLES / MONEY / etc. — and the more widely CARS / MOTORCYCLES / MONEY / etc. are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur”

  6. avatarBrad Kozak says:

    Magoo: Clear something up for me. I’m trying reconcile the logic in your being against the private ownership of guns, yet you’re a gun owner. I’m not trying to be a smartass here (God knows, that requires no effort on my part), but the position from which you argue seems kind of schizoid, if you know what I mean. There’s an inherent dichotomy between arguing against the very thing you do. (Just ask any pol who crusades against porn and gets his hand caught in the nookie jar.) So perhaps you could enlighten the great unwashed here on how you can rationalize your decision to own guns, yet hold the position that private gun ownership is a bad thing.

    Inquiring (and evidently lesser) minds want to know.

    • avatarMagoo says:

      I’m not against the private ownership of guns whatsoever. I am not a “gun grabber.” That is the depiction of gun loons who employ black-and-white reasoning. In this forum, the thinking about gun rights is performed within a little 6×6-inch box. If anyone speaks from outside the box, everyone else’s hair catches on fire and they stop listening.

      But I will tell you this: While I am not exactly crazy about it, I am not necessarily opposed to more and stricter firearms regulations. But what I would really like to see is the sport becoming more responsible and policing itself so the government doesn’t have to do it.

      • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

        Last time I checked, self-defense is not a sport.

      • avatarRalph says:

        We do police ourselves. That’s what the Four Rules are all about. Do you have any other rules we need to obey, oh great and powerful Oz, or are you standing naked behind the curtain?

        • avatarMagoo says:

          30,000 deaths, 200,000+ accidents per year.

        • avatarDesertRat says:

          The majority of those are criminal (as in already a prohibited person) on criminal acts. 200,000 accidents is also B.S. There are 200,000 injuries, but once again the overwhelming majority are the result of criminal acts.

        • avatarJordan says:

          Over half of those deaths are from suicides. More people die every year from second hand smoke than they do from gun’s, thats just a fact. Should we ban smoking too?

        • avatarMagoo says:

          Well, first, I am opposed to banning guns and I presume you are, too. Next, I don’t think the gun world wants the same public image as the tobacco industry, but that’s what it seems to be trying for. Hello, society would indeed ban smoking tomorrow if it could be enforced. There are no “smokers’ rights” in the current social vocabulary.

          Diminutizing your negative impact on society,as the tobacco industry attempts to do, is not the winning strategy. If you want to win friends and influence people, you want to maximize the positive impact of your activity on society. What good are guns? From a public relations perspective, “you can shoot people with them” is a problematical answer.

        • avatarAnon says:

          Good Lord. A little accuracy, please? In 2009, according to the CDC, there were a grand total of 66,769 “Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries”. Sixty-six thousand, *not* two-hundred thousand.

          You were at least *closer* with your 30,000 firearm fatalities a year (the actual number’s 31,224 in 2007), but, as Jodan said, 17,352 of those’re suicides, and suicide method substitution means those numbers aren’t likely to significantly decrease if guns magically disappeared overnight.

          I swear, Google and you must not be on speaking terms…

        • avatarDesertRat says:

          “you can shoot people with them” is a problematical answer.

          However, “you can shoot people attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm upon you with them.” is not a problematical answer.

      • avatarNCG says:

        It’s all about where the line is drawn. Either side can extrapolate existing regulations to an absurd position – “The Second Amendment allows me to own a belt-fed 20mm cannon for home defense….” or, “You obviously can’t own a 20mm cannon, so it’s okay to say you can’t own a hand gun, or a 30 round mag,” or the ever-popular “gun owners should only be allowed to have Revolutionary era muskets.”

        We accept that there is some government regulation of the ownership of weapons. Personally, I prefer, in all matters of civil liberties, to err on the side of freedom. Are there dangerous morons with CC permits? I know of at least one. But I’ll live with a certain amount of risk. I don’t have a problem with Oregon’s CC rules – it’s a shall-issue state, but you have to take a little class, the whole deal costs about $100 (in fact, I think I may do it, you guys have made me carry-curious). I also don’t have a problem with Vermont or Alaska. Illinois, not so cool.

        What is ironic is the unwillingness of the pro-gun right to address the issues that lead to so much “gun violence” – rampant poverty and a neglected education system leading to gangs, an economic system with wealth so concentrated at the top that those at the bottom have little choice but to turn to selling black-market drugs (the profits of which go to the cartels and ultimately Wall Street). “Free Market” trade policies killing American manufacturing. Urban police behaving like an occupying army. Economic injustice will always result in violence. So you can arm yourselves and hide out in the suburbs, but if we’re really interested in reducing violence in our society, we’re going to have work collectively to solve a lot of problems.

        Just my commie bastard take on the matter.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          You need to tell the hippie and antigun folks on your side to quiet down before you can co-opt the rest of the pro-gun side.

        • avatarNCG says:

          Doubt I’d have much luck telling anyone to quiet down. Nor would I want to.

          As for “Hippies,” most of them I know are not particularly anti-gun. Some are armed. Hippies are, by definition, anti-authoritarian.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          Meant to say “pacifist”

        • avatarVigilantis says:

          American manufacturing is no more dead than I am. It’s just automated. Output is roughly 80 percent higher today than it was in 1979, and over 350 percent higher than in 1955. Manufacturing as a share of total employment has declined, but it’s not because of trade policies, it’s because robots are cheaper in the long run than laborers.

          You are right however, in that the root cause of most “gun violence” is poverty. I suspect that’s one of the reasons why gun control is popular on the left, you can’t ban poverty, but you can scapegoat guns for the ills of the poor and try to ban them.

        • avatarRalph says:

          “the root cause of most “gun violence” is poverty.”

          Correct. Outstanding. But what’s the cause of poverty?

        • avatararctic_front says:

          Want to get rid of poverty? Make welfare payments something you earn by working. Clean the sidewalks, shovel snow, stop paying single mothers MORE money for getting pregnant.

          Sheesh! ‘free money’ begets more welfare. Why work if the Government gives you money not to?

          Half the people working for Public Works departments’ around the country are doing work people on welfare could be doing. Picking up trash, watering and cutting lawns in city parks ect.

          Think outside the box:
          Pay people the same amount of money they usually get on welfare, but make them work at unskilled labour to get paid. Pretty soon they will figure out that getting a ‘real’ job pays better and will move into the regular economy. Same goes for single mom’s who increase their income by having more babies. If they see no increase in money with additional mouths to feed, they will learn to take that ‘little pill’ each morning, and yes, that little pill should be given out free to all who want it. It’s a lot cheaper than welfare payments, and morally better than abortion. No more free abortions and no extra welfare payments will soon curb the unwanted babies born in this world.

          Why can’t we use natural human nature in a positive way? Instead we do the exact opposite. We encourage bad behavior by rewarding it with more money. Will there be some unintended consequences with this tough-love approach?… more than likely… but will they be better or worse than what we have now? We should be moving steadily BACK to when we all were held accountable for our actions and take responsibility for them.

          Take for example non-violent property crimes such as vandalism. 100% restitution in all cases. No need for jail. Each offender must pay back the victim, in full, all damages. I’m sure that stupidity will decrease overnight. All violent crimes should see mandatory jail. No probation, just hard time doing hard labour. First offense, some incarceration, no plea-bargaining. Same goes for white collar crime, AKA, Bernie Maddox or Enron types.

          Sexual assaults should be treated with extreme prejudice. Repeat offenders should be castrated and tatoo’d so others can identify them.

          Harsh?.. you bet. What we have been doing recently hasn’t been working, so lets change the paradigm.

          I don’t apologize if I offend the liberal mind-set and sensibilities. They have had 40 years of failed social engineering to show for their misguided efforts and it is getting worse, not better.

          Oh, and guns are good. Criminals bad.

  7. I thought he was talking about not only the negligence which happens among the law-abiding gun owners, but also the ones who turn bad right before our eyes. I know you guys like to pretend both things, the “accidents” and the guys who freak out, are so rare as to be negligible. I disagree with that.

    The thing I think he left out is the gun flow from lawful gun owners to criminals. Through straw purchasing, theft and stupidity, guns are flowing continually from the lawful sunshine to the criminal darkness. The more guns there are the more that happens.

    All of it is aided by the laws and policies you guys work so hard for.

    • avatar2yellowdogs says:

      I agree that to some extent, guns can and do flow from legal to less than legal owners. Are you arguing that, in order to stop that, law-abiding citizens should not be able to own guns?

    • avatarotalps says:

      “I know you guys like to pretend both things, the “accidents” and the guys who freak out, are so rare as to be negligible. I disagree with that.”

      Shocker.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Ah. Magoo arrives and mikey isn’t far behind. Coincidence? Refer to punchline above.

  8. avatarrick wagner says:

    In answer to Mr. Magoo, he does not have to worry about me. My gun is for the protection of my family and myself. If I observed Mr. Magoo or his wife or his son being assaulted I will use my cell phone to call the police. That as far as I am concerned is my only duty to him or any other stranger.

    r. wagner

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      Exactly. That permit doesn’t make you Captain America. You don’t know the reason behind every sort of encounter. Some are fairly obvious (you are attacked or a store is held up) and some aren’t (you come across an assault in the street).

      You are responsible for every bullet you fire. Of course, you are innocent until proven guilty but if something comes out that puts you in the guilty box without reasonable doubt then you’re going to get ostracized by practically everyone in the firearms community. Same goes for promoting tactics that have failed on the field.

      • avatarRalph says:

        “you are innocent until proven guilty”

        Massachusetts has a slightly different take on the situation. This the land of the Minutemen where freedom doesn’t ring, it tinkles. Here, you are innocent unless Martha Coakley is having menstrual cramps.

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      Thank you. I for one am sick of being called a hero that would risk my neck because you don’t have a gun. It is such a common motive for an anti to use this. For me, nothing could be further from the truth. I wouldn’t even call the police first thing. I would watch and make sure that me and mine was safe and remove them if needed. Only then would something be done on my part.

  9. avatarRalph says:

    Hey, Professor BeBopalula is right. Good people make bad decisions every day. The only way to stop it is for government to make all the decisions about everything. That’s what the far left (note, not “liberals”) and the wingnuts are all about. You see, we are way too stupid to make our own decisions. We need college professors or bureaucrats or mikey to do our thinking for us.

    “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach Humanistic Studies.” Quote attributed to Ralph.

  10. avatarJeff Lynch says:

    “I have long noticed this kind of Manichean language emanating from the guns rights camp. The world is divided into good and evil; there are bad people in it, and we need to let the good people be armed so they can defend their families, etc.”

    Jeff: Yes, exactly right. The “bad people” are already armed and the “good people” should be able to defend themselves.

    “Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with guns — and the more widely guns are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur. This is no vain speculation, just the law of averages.”

    Jeff: Nope. This argument uses inductive reasoning not statistical logic. There is no statistical correlation between the number of firearms “available” and the number of “gun related” accidents in the US. In fact, statistics provide evidence to the contrary.

    “Can we imagine elementary schoolteachers with guns behind their desks? Seriously? What’s wrong with us? No civil society worthy of the name should need armed teachers.”

    Jeff: I would certainly support an elementary teacher’s right to self protection but under current law firearms are not allowed in schools. This doesn’t seem to stop the criminals however.

    “With its refusal to even sit at the same table with people who have doubts about broad gun ownership — combined with its push to get guns onto college campuses — the NRA has signaled that it is taking its crusade to a higher level: It aims to remove any shame, awkwardness or modesty associated with gun ownership.”

    Jeff: Shame? Seriously? I doubt anyone at the NRA is ashamed of their firearm ownership or advocacy. As for modesty, I believe having a CHL and carrying concealed is more than enough modesty to protect the dainty sensibilities of liberal college professors.

    “If the NRA succeeds in disassociating those qualities entirely from gun ownership, caution will vanish, too, I fear. And clearly, caution is already in too short supply.”

    Jeff: Again the author relies upon inductive reasoning by equating “shame” with “caution”. The patently false assumption is that gun owners would be less cautious if they were less ashamed.

    In Conclusion: The ramblings of Mr. DeBrabander are completely without merit, logic or common sense. His writing shows a clearly disturbed personality with a very shaky grasp of reality. I recommend weekly visits with a trained therapist and perhaps a visit to NRA headquarters for a thorough detox. A few hours firing an AR-15 at the range after some much needed firearm safety training would probably do him a world of good. So too would a good stiff scotch!

  11. avatarRob Crawford says:

    “Good people will sometimes make bad decisions with penises — and the more widely penises are available, the more likely these bad decisions are to occur”

    No different. We expect you to be an adult in how you handle and use your genitalia; we expect you to be an adult in how you handle and use your firearms. This fellow wants to take one of them away, apparently because he doesn’t think you’re fully human.

  12. avatarConfederalRepublicInOurLifetime says:

    It’s pretty hilarious that before 1934, my neighbor’s 9-year-old could go and order/buy a belt-fed infantry-annihilating machine gun by mail and there weren’t any school shootings, and that many state legislators literally took it as laughable, immoral, and a disgraceful waste of in-session time to discuss gun restrictions of any sort as recently as the 1920s (even in NY, as it happens).

    In comes social democracy, socialism, communism, and on the wave of that general sector of the political spectrum comes riding the flip-the-side mentality – that mentality being that governments can do whatever is not prohibited and citizens do what is explicitly permitted, not the other way around, as it should be, and that officialities and titles grand certain people otherwordly wisdom that is necessary to be free and independent, making them the rulers and dictators of life and its direction.

    After that, the constitution might as well have been sent to the nearest Congressman’s personal residence for use as toilet paper, because it didn’t mean jack shit.

    Never mind that the Constitution is completely and utterly irrelevant, that our rights are natural and absolute (yes, absolute – you don’t get punished for screaming “fire” in a theater; you get punished for causing mayhem, injury, and causing harm IF IT HAPPENS AS A RESULT, just as if you would if you shot someone with your gun), and that the philosophy that your next-door neighbor can deprive you of your liberty because you gave him a job (legislator), a suit, and a title is one of the most gut-wrenchingly disgusting and unacceptable ideas imaginable.

    Never mind all that, because there IS a document that binds government, and in it, it says things like, “… SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, and “… SHALL MAKE NO LAW”.

    By any linguistic or communicative standard of any sort ever devised and practiced, in any corner of the world, has there even been a clearer and more coherent and understandable way to say something? SHALL NOT INFRINGE, SHALL MAKE NO LAW, as in, for fuck’s sake, NO. Yet most Americans live under varying degrees of tyranny. Apparently, reading is a rare skill.

    It’s been over 40 years since the Gun Control Act. It’s been even more since FDR’s antics, and it’s been even longer than that since the NFA of 1934, and where were we back then? Who the fuck shoved our heads up our asses so far that we didn’t burn the White House and the Capitol to cinders (even literally, perhaps)?

    How did we stoop so low as to actually allow such developments to occur in Congress and state and local legislative bodies, or even allow our society to degrade to the point where people that believe(d) in these abominations became sufficiently plentiful among us to allow for the establishment and maintenance of these edicts and laws and ways of thinking?

    What happened to the grand confederacy of free men the Patriots at Yorktown fought for? What happened to eternal, supreme, unchangeable law, based on the concept of natural rights? What happened to absolute liberty? What happened to the idea that government should be absolutely and totally powerless in anything other than the limited powers it is permitted for its few, explicitly enumerated powers?

    What happened to the republic? I’m Russian, and I didn’t cry over photographs of my grandparents (executed by firing squad by the NKVD for counter-revolutionary “activities”, my grandfather being a decorated colonel in the Soviet Army) precisely because I knew that somewhere, over there, was America – a place we didn’t know much about, but which we were certain carried the last, best hope for us and our fellow man.

    What happens to humanity when America, in its true form, is dead? If I wanted socialism, social democracy, communism, fascism, wider collectivism, unequivocal illogic and immorality and irrationality, any mixture of these that allow societies to be dominated by cultures of narco-terrorism and other unthinkable monstrosities, and the beautiful consequences of such ideologies and ideas, I’d live in Europe, South America, Asia, Oceania, or Africa.

    But that’s not what I want. That’s not what I came for. What I want is to be free. What I want is to wake up in the morning, walk up to the window, and see the horizon as a truly free man – with a rifle on the wall, all my money and my hard-earned wealth still in my bank account and in my hands, and my children literate in history and proud of their new country – growing up independent souls, grateful to live in the blessings of their liberty, and ready to fight and die for its perpetuation, as all moral men should be.

    Neither my family, nor (I suspect) the unimaginably enormous ocean of others that shared the ills and misfortunes of my family over the centuries, crawled and tolerated (and continue to crawl and tolerate) through lifetimes of utter shit, slavery, and near-universal and near-unconscionable misery to find the last bastion of civilization reduced to ashes and dust.

    If these mother-fuckers want my rifle or my 30-round magazines, they can come and get them. If I go, I’m taking as many of them as I can with me. And I hope they go straight into the flames of Hell, because anybody who walks up to you and rips your liberty, your very life, from your hands for a government payroll–or any reason, in fact–deserves the same fate as the ambitious architects of his tyrannical conduct.

    I say “God bless America” because it represents an idea, and I fly Old Glory because it means the world to me, not in pretense or to cover up my platitudes or unjustifiable behavior in regard to my neighbors with the flag, and that the White House and Congress fly it today, as appropriate to protocol as it may be, disgusts me to my core.

    Any governmental entity, ANY group of people that possesses or claims to possess some sort of authority over any other group of people (i.e. our governments, state or local or federal, to the rest of us) that reaches the point where its members are ACTUALLY, SERIOUSLY proposing infringements to the very ideals that granted them the authority they have, upon their peers that gave them these explicit and scarce powers, has already become an abomination; don’t wait for such bodies to enact their immorality into law, because every step backwards is another decade of misery.

    Free men do not compromise, and this isn’t a radical idea in any possible sense. This is the most sound and righteous of all ideas – free men are free now and always, and anything or anybody that would unmake their freedom must not be permitted to execute its/their plans to do so – ever.

    Moderation in principle is never acceptable, to paraphrase somebody you should all be familiar with.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.