I keep hearing in conservative anti-gun control circles this ultimatum:
"The government can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands."
Mkay.
Let's go over what you just said.
You just said that the government, which is apparently coming after you and using extreme force to remove deadly weapons from your person, will have to kill you to get them.
Do you think that threat will stop them? Or might it actually hasten their desire to remove the gun?
Do you think that will stop the government you obviously hate? In your paranoid delusion, where the government of the United States is beating down doors to remove weapons of mass murder(which in your mind must include plastic forks, since they are just a 'tool'), do you think your lone gunman standoff will stop them from escalating?
Do you think your posturing makes the evil, corporate controlled government worried that you might be a bad person and oh we should never mess with that individual?
What if your worst fears are realized and the government decides to come after your guns?
What then? You barricade yourself in. They knock your door down. You start firing. They retreat. They tear gas you. You have a mask, and laugh as the smoke rolls through your house, firing at the next cops dumb enough to come in the door. They retreat again.
With a "nice" government, the best you can hope for is a nice long standoff ending with your arrest or death. With the meany mean government in your reality, however - a reality, mind you, where the police arm themselves against the rest of the law-abiding population - why wouldn't they just set your house on fire and wait an hour or two?
What makes you think your impotent standoff, your "cold dead hands" argument, is worth a flying flap to anyone in the government, police, or military - except as proof of your insanity? If there is a test for sanity, you just failed it.
"The government can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands."
Mkay.
Let's go over what you just said.
You just said that the government, which is apparently coming after you and using extreme force to remove deadly weapons from your person, will have to kill you to get them.
Do you think that threat will stop them? Or might it actually hasten their desire to remove the gun?
Do you think that will stop the government you obviously hate? In your paranoid delusion, where the government of the United States is beating down doors to remove weapons of mass murder(which in your mind must include plastic forks, since they are just a 'tool'), do you think your lone gunman standoff will stop them from escalating?
Do you think your posturing makes the evil, corporate controlled government worried that you might be a bad person and oh we should never mess with that individual?
What if your worst fears are realized and the government decides to come after your guns?
What then? You barricade yourself in. They knock your door down. You start firing. They retreat. They tear gas you. You have a mask, and laugh as the smoke rolls through your house, firing at the next cops dumb enough to come in the door. They retreat again.
With a "nice" government, the best you can hope for is a nice long standoff ending with your arrest or death. With the meany mean government in your reality, however - a reality, mind you, where the police arm themselves against the rest of the law-abiding population - why wouldn't they just set your house on fire and wait an hour or two?
What makes you think your impotent standoff, your "cold dead hands" argument, is worth a flying flap to anyone in the government, police, or military - except as proof of your insanity? If there is a test for sanity, you just failed it.
Mexican standoffs are not usually this funny.
If you utter the words "cold dead hands," I would suggest to the world - and Dumberica - that you may not be the kind of person who should own a gun. The ideology behind that phrase conceals an extremism that has little place in any law-abiding society.
This is not a Quentin Tarantino film. This is not Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. This is not you nobly holding to your ideals and fighting off your oppressors. This is you being a Jackass and threatening to hold your own personal armed revolution against a government that doesn't exist - and if it did, would crush you anyway.
200 years ago, when the 2nd amendment was passed, we were fresh off of revolution. We were, understandably, worried that people needed a weapon against a potentially dangerous government. The most powerful, fastest shooting gun you could own was a musket. A MUSKET. The rate of fire was roughly 4 shots per minute, max, and the interim was spent re-loading, not looking for the next victim. Seemed like a good idea that the American people should have one of those, so our "Minutemen" could be called up again if necessary.
I'm not going to argue against all gun ownership, but hasn't the world changed a tiny bit?
Stop using the "cold dead hands" argument. It's the pro-gun equivalent of the nuclear solution. You are essentially saying that if our government passed laws making your weapon illegal that you would shoot them. Is there another country in the world - another civilized, non-extremist country - where that statement would be tolerated? Is there another country in the world where such a comment wouldn't lead to some sort of eyebrow-raising?
Worst of all, understand this: When you say the government can take your weapon when they pry it from your cold, dead, hands, you are daring them to.
What happens when they say, "Okay"?
This is not a Quentin Tarantino film. This is not Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. This is not you nobly holding to your ideals and fighting off your oppressors. This is you being a Jackass and threatening to hold your own personal armed revolution against a government that doesn't exist - and if it did, would crush you anyway.
200 years ago, when the 2nd amendment was passed, we were fresh off of revolution. We were, understandably, worried that people needed a weapon against a potentially dangerous government. The most powerful, fastest shooting gun you could own was a musket. A MUSKET. The rate of fire was roughly 4 shots per minute, max, and the interim was spent re-loading, not looking for the next victim. Seemed like a good idea that the American people should have one of those, so our "Minutemen" could be called up again if necessary.
I'm not going to argue against all gun ownership, but hasn't the world changed a tiny bit?
Stop using the "cold dead hands" argument. It's the pro-gun equivalent of the nuclear solution. You are essentially saying that if our government passed laws making your weapon illegal that you would shoot them. Is there another country in the world - another civilized, non-extremist country - where that statement would be tolerated? Is there another country in the world where such a comment wouldn't lead to some sort of eyebrow-raising?
Worst of all, understand this: When you say the government can take your weapon when they pry it from your cold, dead, hands, you are daring them to.
What happens when they say, "Okay"?
RSS Feed
