American Thinker – by Kenneth Bennight
Would-be gun controllers argue that guns are different from other dangerous commodities. Guns are uniquely are designed to kill, they say, and therefore lack the utility of other dangerous things. Take automobiles, for instance: automobiles kill more people than guns, but automobiles’ primary use is peaceful, and automobiles are not designed to kill. Why, gun controllers ask, should we tolerate guns, which are dangerous and have no material utility other than killing?
Gun-rights defenders sometimes argue that guns have innocent uses such as hunting and target-shooting. Those uses, they argue, justify widespread gun ownership. But what other widespread toy is as potentially lethal as guns? It’s poor argumentation to refuse to acknowledge the obvious: the function of guns is to kill. That is incontrovertible. Non-killing uses of guns are incidental.
Does that make the gun controllers right? No. If we are to preserve our Second Amendment rights and our freedom generally, we must accept the possibility of legitimate killing in two circumstances: defense against violence and resistance to oppression.
Self-defense is a natural right of all persons, one not limited to non-lethal force. If gun controllers concede that, they proceed to parse finely the degree of allowable lethal force. (No one needs more than a three-round magazine.) But any such calculation necessarily assumes unknowable things.
Why is it that those who know the least about guns have the strongest opinions on how much lethality is legitimately necessary? And gun controllers would not impose those limits on the Secret Service or the bodyguards of other prominent people. What has become of America if the law holds that the lives of such people are more worthy than the lives of the rest of us?
A line on lethality must be drawn somewhere. Most of us agree that it is short of individual nuclear warheads, but why should it be pushed all the way back to single-shot .22s? To reasonably locate the line of permissible defense, look to the sort of weapons that are most popular. That incorporates the wisdom of crowds and easily covers AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacity.
No doubt the founders accepted the natural right of self-defense, but that was not why they proposed the Second Amendment. They had just prevailed in a war won largely with civilian-owned firearms. The shot heard round the world was fired to resist a British attempt to disarm Americans. The British army, accustomed to an unarmed British countryside, was surprised by an armed and largely hostile American populace. The founders wanted to protect Americans’ ability to resist oppression. If we wish to retain our freedoms, we must retain that ability.
This is the point where sophisticates roll their eyes. Armed resistance to oppression? Really? In the 21st century? Yes, really, in the 21st century. Most gun controllers, being of the left, cannot conceive of a threat to civil liberties from the present administration. But the same people claimed fear of “Darth” Chaney. On the other hand, they think that Obama’s sidekick Bill Ayers, the former Weatherman, is merely colorful.
We need not argue which side of the cultural divide poses the bigger threat to civil liberties. Both sides think the other is a threat. So both sides must accept the existence of threats to civil liberties.
Next, gun controllers argue that no civilian militia could hope to stand up to a modern military. With no apparent irony, they make this argument right after arguing there is no justification for civilians owning semiautomatic weapons such as an AR-15 or any weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.
Irony aside, we need not expect a civilian militia to stand up to a modern military in a pitched battle. As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from Vietnam, not all resistance is in pitched battles. Take, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto. With few arms, the Jewish resistance greatly complicated the task of the Nazis. Of course, the episode ended badly for the Jews, but how likely is it that the American military or even police departments would be complicit in an extermination program? And shouldn’t we be sorry that the Warsaw Jews had only as many weapons as they did? If only they had had many more.
If any level of government attempts to use the military or the police as an instrument of oppression, the results will be horrific. But have enough confidence in our military and police to believe that many will refuse outright to participate, and many others will be conflicted about following their orders. If enforcing oppression can be made sufficiently difficult, many more enforcers may reverse sides, and the enterprise may break down. In the end, even Soviet soldiers would not fire on the Soviet people. I am not suggesting that it would be painless or bloodless, but the more arms the protectors of liberty have, the more likely they are to be successful.
The ability to kill is itself the social utility of guns. Killing is a legitimate activity in the right circumstances. If we can’t make that argument, we won’t preserve our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson warned that retaining liberty may sometimes require spilling “the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That is one of the unpleasant truths about human nature. Gun controllers would prevent us from preserving our freedoms.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/guns_are_designed_to_kill.html#ixzz2HWrDg7Od
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Thats about as funny as seeing jessica simpson in a weightwatcher commercial. Yes guns are made to kill. For the nwo to kill us when we reject their utopia they promice us? But not for us to protect our rights which are being stripped away without a care for our beliefs in our American way that our ancestors gave us in a legal document with an agreement from very wise men that knew we would eventually need them for protection from a tyrranical gov that would one day come and try to take them rights. I know i dont want to be defensless if obama keeps on pissing off russia and it will take more than our military. Having armed citizens is what makes this country powerfull and those wise men knew that everyone working together is better than having expendable slaves while the government hides like cowards in their secret bunkers. I am so pissed off that the military is complying with the government. Where is our AMERICAN SOLDIERS?
“I am so pissed off that the military is complying with the government. Where is our AMERICAN SOLDIERS?”
I ask myself that question EVERY DAY! Especially when I hear about the RFID chips in San Antonio, TX schools when San Antonio has multiple military training bases.
WHERE ARE THE SOLDIERS WHO ARE SWORN TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY, AND OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN????
I read that one too man. Is there really nobody left concidered elite on our side. Im really thinking this is gonna be a crazy year. And that person who said homeschooling will stop funding when local taxes pay for it even if they dont go to the school.. I really hope this is not left up to just the people they are trying to disarm right now cuz if so this is only the beginning. I am just glad to see it in my generation without kids yet because if i live through it i know i fought to give them the same oppertunities some might say slipped away from me.
“Where are our American Soldiers?”
I have been noticing a heavy, heavy build up of Chinook traffic between Ft. Campbell, KY and Ft. Knox, KY in the past week. I live just outside of Ft. knox under the chopper flight path and the shithooks have been flying very low almost none stop this past week. For those not familiar with the Chinook/shithook, they are transport for soldiers and equipment. They are the large, grasshopper looking, double rotor jobs that frequently can be seen swinging cargo underneath as they fly. I haven’t seen any exposed cargo, but these bad boys cost a bunch to fire up and I’m bettin’ they’re not flying empty. As I recall, troop payload, all seated along the side, is 44-48. I have also experienced full troop compliment and jeeps and other cargo. These monsters, along with Flying cranes, were the workhorses of the 1st Air Cav when I was in Viet Nam.
So, I might just have an idea where many of our “Air Assault” soldiers are at the moment.
I haven’t noticed any of them acting like they won’t fire on Americans either.
I may be dead wrong and there’s just a field exercise going on but, after all of these years here, this is about the heaviest I seen this kind of shithook traffic.
Anyone else living near military installations noticing any strange activity?
You bet Oldranger68! Here in Albuquerque the armory has tripled its inventory of Humvees with armored .50 cal turrets. The armory has 6 new APCs and an increase in transports as well.
Go to Google Earth: Type in Albuquerque National Guard Armory.
You will see the Armory’s 3/21/12 vehicle inventory. The inventory is now three times larger.
The Shithooks are flying over our ranch on a daily basis along with blackhawks. Some of the blawkhawks are FEMA choppers. They have been executing heavy exercises for the last year.
C-130’s gunships and transports are flying real low over the ranch in the last year.
Anybody else seen any increase in military activities?
Things are heating up a bit. We are in for one hell of a year.
Were known as terrorist here to interfere without u.n. consent. I dont know which would be worse. Them going to meet the russian battleships near iran or declaring martial law by executive order on guns. Whichever it is all i can say is here we go. I know a few people in the military. I do have faith that when they realize what is happening its gonna be 1776
Like the Jefferson Airplane song said – “We`re all outlaws in the eyes of amerika”
Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Hey Shawn, I got an “A” in History and I’m still f_cked!
Ha. Then you should be well educated at things to come!!
They also make excellent paperweights when not being used for their primary purpose. 🙂
This is a question of logic, not politics, not emotion. Would the gun grabbers support disarmament of all governments at all levels and all criminals? Possibly, but it is not possible. The genie is out of the bottle and has been for tens of thousands of years. Man has always had weapons. Since all other men would have weapons then I too must have weapons to defend myself and my family from those that would mean us harm. No words written on paper and declared law, no men in uniforms demanding at my door will persuade me to put my family at risk of death. My weapons will preserve my right to defend and my right to preserve my rights.
My cousin in NC sent this to me. author unknown;
“If it’s owned by law enforcement, I should be able to own it. If it protects a congressman, or even the president, I should be allowed to own it for my, and my family’s, protection.”
Says it all.
“Guns Are Designed to Kill”
NO, they are NOT designed to kill.
All, and I mean ALL firearms are designed to do JUST ONE of TWO possible things:
[A] To expel a projectile as accurately as possible into a direction as determined by the possessor of that device
[B] Expel a gas with a loud report to be used as either blank shooter, or as a starting pistol.
Next: There are ZERO manufacturers of firearms who have stated in their literature that their device is ‘designed to kill.’ And, if any of those manufacturers were to make that claim, they could be sued for false advertising. The reason: If a gun isn’t loaded, then the ONLY way that gun may used to harm someone is by employing it as a bludgeon.
Further, for a device which was ‘designed to kill,’ then they are crass failure. PROOF: Fewer than 30% of ALL bullet wounds actually result in a fatality, and that includes battlefield woundings. In the case the message is not comprehended, what that equates to is a better than 70% failure rate.
So, the WHOLE ‘Guns Are Designed to Kill’ argument is just one heap load of complete BULL.
Brav-f#@king-O!