Aug 3, 2012


As much as the "Gun Nuts" assert that guns don’t kill people any more than forks make people fat, one would assume they could also agree with the legalization of drugs.

In my experiences, this is rarely the case. Which is not to say there aren’t the odd 2nd Amendment yahoos that would agree with the concept, but I can’t often find them. In fact, the pro-firearm individuals I encounter seem to be the same people who want to outlaw every drug from Marijuana to Muscatel.  

I don’t get it. The same argument applies.  The drugs don’t take themselves. They don’t crawl into the mouths or veins of the unsuspecting. So why all the restrictions?

To the NRA cowboys, the thought of jailing a meth-lab chemist should be as preposterous as arresting a machinist for making a rifle barrel. And yet, it’s not. There’s no hue and cry. No demonstrations. Nothing.

On the subject of gun control, these people scream out terms like, liberty, self determination, oppression, and privacy invasion. But for drug control, they are mostly tacit.

Federal rules for gun ownership are vehemently vilified as indecent government control, but government control over when you can have a beer, when you can dial your cell phone, how high your pants have to be pulled up at the mall, or where, and when you, can ogle at a stripper, gets zero concern.

Double standard.

Look – I’m not against guns. I’ve always felt that, in a perfect world, everyone should have a gun. Trick is, this IS NOT a perfect world. You got your psychos out there, your jilted boyfriends with a taste for vengeance, your deluded fanboys with orange hair and twisted Batman fixations.

It sucks, but it’s true. And we just have to live with the fact that if you want guns, you gotta deal with the jack asses who abuse them.

Here is another argument that makes no sense: "If you take away the guns from the people, only the criminals will have them." 

Well, true… but NOT true.

The cops will still have them - and the military. (And last I heard, criminals are mostly “people”  …aside from the odd extortionist bear and safecracking wombats.)  But for arguments sake, let’s say that ONLY “criminals” could go to a gun store and buy a gun...?

What are the chances any gun salesman woul say,

“Okay buddy, as long as you’re NOT a law-abiding citizen, because then I’d have to tell you to go pound salt.”    (Could this really happen? Gun right gurus would have you believe it might.)

But say it COULD. So then you would only have two kinds of people with guns. The cops/military (who should have them) and... the riff raff.
Well, to me it’s like color coding the bad guys.
I.e., consider the following litmus test:
Does the person have a gun? Yes? Is he a police officer? No. –  BINGO, he’s under arrest.

Simpler criteria at some level, isn’t it? 

I’m mostly kidding, but the original argument is still weak. What’s wrong with knowing who the criminals are?  This is not even touching on the concept that having a gun is one thing, but having a military-grade, rapid fire, death cannon is entirely another.

And then there's the argument that the military and the cops having the only guns, or better guns, is a danger to our freedom.

A valid point…. IN THE 18th CENTURY!

Nowadays, taking up arms against the police or military would be parallel to the coups in Zimbabwe.

Seriously? Do we really think we’ll have to start shooting the police? Is this an actual concern for you deluded bastards? After all, it goes on in Germany, France, and Norway soooo often, it’s bound to happen here right?  Give your head a shake.

Paranoia is a sad basis for a system of government - but have at it, you bloodthirsty bullet-heads. I’m not really interested in changing your mind…

I’m only interested in laughing at it.

No comments: