. . .not really.
Anarcho-Tyranny: Two Stark Examples
Anarcho-tyranny is a concept, where the state is argued to be more interested in controlling citizens so that they do not oppose the managerial class (tyranny) rather than controlling real criminals (causing anarchy). Laws are argued to be enforced only selectively, depending on what is perceived to be beneficial for the ruling elite. [ref]
In Mexico, neither the police nor the military are effective in curbing cartel violence, for a couple of reasons: plata o plombo, silver or lead. They are either bought off or simply keep a low profile because of threat of gruesome death for themselves and their families. Thus, the government has a de facto policy of either not actively discouraging or active encouraging cartel violence. On the other hand, private citizens who want to arm themselves against cartel violence find it almost impossible to do so legally because of the extremely restrictive firearms laws, which harshly punish private citizens who arm themselves for self-defense. (Indeed, communities that have done so have been harshly punished for making their communities “no go zones” for the cartels).
Anarch-tyranny: no control of real criminals, while criminalizing self-defense measures.
Example two: Chicago. No serious attempt at enforcement of Chicago’s restrictive gun laws applied against criminals who cause most of the (very large number of) firearms deaths in Chicago, while making it difficult for common citizens to legally obtain the tools (firearms) to defend themselves against predation by criminals.
You see, it is dangerous to actually attempt any sort of serious efforts to control violent criminals, but controlling common citizens who want to be law-abiding is easy-peasy. Until the tyranny becomes too much to bear, and then. . . . well, history gives us at least one clear example of a proper response.
File This Under “I’m a Uniter, Not a Divider” *heh*
😉
Semi-Sorta Random Thought on the Passing Scene
In response to absolutely nothing, “ex nihilo,” as it were (from the vast, empty spaces between my ears) issues this random thought:
I believe the only proper gun regulations are self-regulations (with a tip o’ the tam, and an apology to Jeff Cooper):
1. Always treat ALL guns as loaded and ready to be discharged.
2. NEVER let the muzzle cover ANYTHING you are not prepared to destroy.
3. KEEP YOUR BOOGER HOOK OFF THE BANG SWITCH until you have acquired your target and are ready to fire.
4. Be ABSOLUTELY sure of your target and what lies beyond it.
If those four self-regulations are followed, and the Second Amendment were enforced with more than the *wink-wink-nudge-nudge* pseudo-acknowledgement now practiced (IOW, the current open, blatant, and oppressive disregard for “shall not be infringed”), then methinks the proper and ideal “gun regulations” would be in effect.
But maybe that’s just me. . .
There’s Another Lesson That Can Be Drawn From This
Well, at least one two more on top of, “Shoe, meet other foot. And how can Progressives complain? These are just undocumented firearms in search of a better life.”1
Gun sanctuary movement explodes as background checks near record high
- Do not own guns that must be registered. Either make your own or purchase in a lawful private transaction.
- Live in a firearms-friendly locale.
- Practice good infosec/persec.
It’s just common sense, nowadays.
Should the Second Amendment Be Replaced?
Maybeso. . . How about this?
Citizens have the natural, God-given right to self-defense, and thus the natural right to bear arms. No part of the federal government, be it the Legislative, the Executive, or the Judicial branch, may at any time or in any way infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. This includes any weapons that are human-portable, and all equipment and supplies necessary to their function. No exceptions. Period. Any person in any branch of the federal government who in any way, shape, fashion, or form infringes on this right is guilty of treason. Congress may enact any form of capital punishment except old age as the proper punishment for such treason. Non-citizens may only be afforded these protections if they are legal residents of the United States.
Apply the 14th Amendment to that, please.
I Ask These Questions, Because You Don’t Think To
Granted, rifles are used–willfully or accidentally–in a wee bit south of ~400 deaths per year in the US, and deer are only responsible for killing ~150 people per year, but why aren’t people who are concerned about deaths from abuse of AR-15s (a fraction of that less than 400 deaths) also clamoring for the elimination of deer and celebrating those heroes who go out into the deer woods to thin the numbers of these murderous beasts? Why? Because they just do not care, that’s why. *heh*
Of course, Leftoid morons would probably prefer to deal with the problem of Kamikaze Deer murdering innocent motorists by more effective signage telling the deer to cross at places where they are less likely to kill or maim humans (more than 10,000/year injured in less successful deer attacks), or cause the ~$1,000,000,00 of damages they do yearly.
Move Along. Nothing to See Here: Just Another Evil Anti-Gun Whacko
Texas gun control activist shoots her three children dead
“Auzenne was a vocal advocate for stricter gun control in the United States with multiple social media postings calling for an end to gun violence and Facebook profile pictures that bore the hashtags #Enough and #EndGunViolence.”
Well, killing her own children certainly makes her point. Not. The article hand waves a bit of “depression” and “anxiety” along with physical problems, NONE of which are excuses or reasons for killing her own children. The only explanation is that she embraced evil and made it her own.
About That HIvemind Myth of Rampant “Gun Violence”
Yes, I said “myth.” In fact, in 2013, gun violence was at its lowest point–in a steadily decreasing occurrence–since 1993, and the trend has continued even as gun ownership has increased. That is not to say that gun violence has abated uniformly across the country. No, some of locales with the most restrictive gun laws are also where the most gun violence occurs.
In fact, one can almost take all the “anti-gun” talking points and directly refute them with facts, readily available to ordinary people. So, why do the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and various anti-gun groups and individuals promote more restrictive policies that have no rational basis? Well, many are just (self-made) useful idiots adopting irrational ideas based on fiction as an emotional response to Hivemind media and political manipulation. But why the manipulation via lies and purely emotional appeals to begin with? To any thinking person, the answer is obvious: because the ends of the manipulators cannot be served by truth and reason.
Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America Here are the bullet points, but do read the whole thing:
- Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
- The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
- A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
- Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
- Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
- There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
- Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
- Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
(Further development and links to sources at the article)
The crux of the matter is that those advancing the myths about “gun violence” need scared people reacting irrationally to false facts in order to advance more and more government control over individuals’ lives. “Gun violence” scare tactics serve the same purpose as whatever drug du jour scare tactics to: calls for more government intervention. (Yeh, the “opiod crisis” is another manufactured crisis intended to keep pumping up fear and calls for more control, and so far the “war on opiods” seems to do more harm than good, making it increasingly difficult for doctors to prescribe pain meds that are legitimately needed.)
Just always keep in mind: any government action that does not protect actual individual rights is almost assuredly an illegitimate power grab and a violation of individual rights. Period.
An Anti-Gunner Asked a Stupid Question and. . .
Stupid question on Quora: Would a gun amnesty work in America?
I would be perfectly willing to support an “amnesty” for all law enFARCEment personnel and organizations to turn in all assault rifles, flashbangs, etc. (including any and all “military grade” *heh* weaponry and equipment) to appropriate military authority (or even to ad hoc citizen militias).
Such things in the hands of civil government agencies and disallowed to citizens is just flat out wrong.
After all, the very first case challenging the 1934 NFA that came before the SCOTUS resulted in a decision against the (deceased and unrepresented before the court) citizen for having a weapon that was not one in use by the military. Thus, according to that SCOTUS opinion, supposedly only “military grade” firearms are protected by the Second Amendment prohibition against federal infringement. *heh*