Discover more from bad cattitude
gunning for guns
the purpose of an armed populace is to deter and prevent predation by citizens and state alike. forget this fact at your peril.
there is nothing that says “this is not going to go well for you” like a guy with 24/7/365 armed security who just spent two years vilifying you, violating your bodily integrity, and depriving you of basic liberties telling you about how you do not need a gun.
and justin is not the only one making such noises or who is so blasely wrong in his apprehensions.
the word salad generator DBA/ president brandon recently weighed in as well.
The president also said the Second Amendment "was never absolute." He added, "You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed," a claim he has made before that fact-checkers have examined and deemed false.
so, uh, yes it was and is absolute. that was, in fact, the point. and yeah, you could buy a canon.
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.
the security of a free STATE is foregrounded on top of the presumed right to self defense implicit in basic life, liberty and property. our founders were much concerned with the ability of we the people to resist oppressive government. this was the greater impulse for the 2A than even self-protection.
because they knew this, even if most today do not:
and that’s what makes this so funny to me, because the response to this:
would have inevitably been this:
i mean, come on guys. this sort of silly ban always goes the same way: outlaw X and only outlaws will X.
remember how those other bans have worked?
but, of course, you can trust us, right?
because when have we ever let your down or abused such prerogatives?
perhaps we should ask some of america’s early residents about this one?
(and while you’re at it, maybe ask them about how that “free blankets” thing worked out…)
and this whole “you cannot fight the government we’ve got fighter planes and nukes” argument falls awfully flat in the wake of afghanistan or the histrionically overblown events of jan 6 where there were, wait for it, not even any guns.
watch what they do, not what they say.
and if “the state has bigger guns that you do” is a reason you cannot resist them, perhaps the better answer is “then we need to get some bigger guns.”
after all, the point of self defense is to be effective.
anything else is pantomime.
or pursue some common sense solutions.
the simple fact is that guns do not cause crime, they likely suppress it and a disarmed people is at the mercy of the state in a manner that no armed populace is.
our framers found this latter point to be so critical that it was added to the bill of rights. it was neither qualified nor limited.
and they were correct and this notion has stood the test of time.
we hold these truths to be self evident:
the foundational principles of a free people lie in government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
there is neither valid reason to disarm heretofore peaceful people nor is their consent granted for such a taking or limitation.
thus, such abrogation of the right to self defense from others and from an oppressive state cannot be just.
no government that possesses the assent of the governed need fear an armed populace.
it is only those who seek to sustain power through coercion and not consent that require such methods.
disarmament programs in history are never based in the weal of the people. rather, this is used as a form of trojan framing to enable greater governmental predation.
this taking of rights is disingenuously sold as safety. this is why they choose extreme events like mass shootings in schools (and ignore mass shooting in neighborhoods where most occur) and seek to push solutions known not to work (like weapons bans that only serve to leave the lawful more vulnerable to the lawless) and ignore those that do like training and arming teachers. (there has never been a mass shooting attack on a school with armed faculty nor any student harmed thereby)
disarmament encourages dependence and deference.
soft targets invite attack. this is true of gun free zones, cities where citizen carry is proscribed, and nations of people whose right to bear arms has been infringed.
this has been the tactic of fascists, socialists, and authoritarians throughout time and ever shall be, a fact of which our founders and framers were keenly cognizant.
and were they here seeking the same job today today, the i doubt very much the interview would go the way the disarmament derp squad imagines…