I Pledge Allegiance, To the NRA
Every time a young horny white male shoots up his school, the nation rejoices in the hopes of finally putting into place common sense gun laws. Fortunately for us, the excitement is usually stopped short by the kill-joys at the NRA, as the American people come to their senses, while large segments of Congress come to the realization that they too may someday be victims of loading an illegal handgun into their baggy sweat pants. Always representative of the will of the people, we can't really fault our government for the flawed but well-meaning logic of the NRA. So let's take a look at what inspires such a blind allegiance among a membership that should really be better at seeing straight.
Let me do the honors, Wayne. Individuals—a lot of them—have been sacrificed so that a future dictatorship may be brought down by an armed populace. It sounds rather quaint and even agreeable, and as proof of where an unarmed citizenry will lead, the NRA always trots out the example of Hitler, who confiscated all guns upon gaining power. Whether or not anyone in the NRA has ever read a book to determine the validity of the claim, let's entertain a Germany in which the multitudes opted for a six shooter in their sweat pants over loaves of bread going for just around 6 million marks.
Cuba would qualify as a successful armed uprising but the NRA would forgo the free healthcare thing before citing this. Okay, I'll be generous and give 1 million Germans their guns to act as a check against their government. In this corner, Nazis were ruthless, motivated, and most importantly, organized—the populace (as even the learned historians at the NRA would concede) is not, though. It wouldn't have mattered how many angry German cowboys you've got running around, they'd have been wholly insufficient in the face of a force that was soon to bring Oktoberfest to most of Europe, Northern Africa, and Russia.
Additionally, it almost isn't even worth mentioning that this population elected its government, stood by as millions of fellow Germans were hauled off in cattle cars, and if their gun owners were anything like our xenophobic right wing slingers, they were probably the first to surrender their weapons to a crowd that was speaking their language like never before.

We are, we are... the youth of a naa-tion.But we can only speculate, so let's take a look at revolution in the real world. Even though I generally frown upon radical Islamic revolution, and it will probably put me on some terrorist watch list, I think the overthrow of the shah in 1979 demonstrates how revolutions can come to pass. Generally, public frustration reaches a critical mass, people take to the streets, and the military refuses to fire on the crowd to uphold a discredited system.
Armed with their Muslim bibles and burning American flags (an issue for another day), the Iranian people got the shah off his peacock as he gathered his goat and ran for his life. For more of this type of thing, see Russia 1917 and 1991, the Philippines in 1986, and all of Eastern Europe in 1989.
Of course, Africa seems to have no shortage of gunplay to fuel the armed conflicts that have gone on since the 1960s. So much for my premise, but then again there doesn't seem to be a happy ending anywhere within our attention span for this beleaguered continent.
Cuba would also qualify as a successful armed uprising but I'm certain that the NRA would forgo the free healthcare thing before citing this example in their cold dead hands. Conveniently, they might say, I'm leaving out our own revolution, but that seems more a war between independent nations with standing armies rather than random pockets of resistance on this side of the earth.
Finally, the events of Tiananmen Square point to an uprising that went down in flames without access to any firepower, but could a few angry students with guns have toppled the communist state in between study breaks, beer and bong hits? (Yes, bongs. They didn't hold the Opium Wars here for nothing.) Otherwise, I think it's pretty safe to say that the shooting that mattered most, as a solitary student faced down a tank, came from a camera, and resulted in a fairly successful shift from strict communism to a better brand of Chinese Capitalism.
Unfortunately, as they've made their bones selling lead paint to our kids, China has stepped up into ownership of America. On the bright side, maybe someday they'll own the rights to the Second Amendment and at least make a better argument that allows us to go on killing ourselves in the hypothetical name of the something that actually matters.
Share



















12 Comments
(Post new comment)As we all know, shootings only happen in areas where there's no strict gun control. That's why Washington, D.C. is such a pleasant, safe city. And why school shootings don't happen in strong gun control cities.
Oh, no, wait. Neither is true. In fact, despite tough gun control, cities like Washington have outrageous crime rates. What happened?
The bad guys don't care about a gun control law you're implementing. They were going to commit a violent crime anyway. They're not real concerned that they could also be charged with illegal possession of a firearm along with their class one felony.
Who does care? Law abiding people. They don't want to break the law, so they'll hand over or simply not purchase weapons.
End result? Criminals have weapons and law abiding citizens don't. What a deal! Where do I sign up?
I'm a Libertarian, as all Americans should be. If you don't want to own a legal gun, then don't. Anony above me said everything best though.
Fun story - here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533574,00.html
Look it up on YouTube - the car dealer destroys the journalist who thought she'd be interviewing a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, redneck pro-gun guy. She got smacked down.
What is interesting in this opinion piece is that you've managed to screw up your own argument.
The majority of gun deaths happen by ILLEGAL firearms, used by people of color, against OTHER people of color.
That's not racist, and it certainly does not help to stop the problem when PCism won't allow us to know where the problems are, and therefore how to fix them.
Washington DC, Chicago, and NY City have the WORST homicide rates for hand-guns (and any guns), and yet they have the strictest gun control laws.
it's not a debate - bodies are bodies. The laws are the laws. Someone may want to spin it anyway they'd like, but realize that by doing so they are themselves showing their political ideology, not a grasp on facts.
Why is it that, since owning guns is the problem and needs to be stopped, that the politicians EXEMPT themselves from those same laws.
Yep, both in Chi-Town and NY that is the case. And in Washington DC, you may have noticed the large #'s of armed escorts those politicians have, the buildings they work in having metal detectors (and it was prior to 9/11), and many living in gated communities with ARMED guards.
Now, why, pray-tell, do you suppose they exempt themselves from the very laws they say are ESSENTIAL? While having armed body gaurds to boot?
My wife is from Asia, and was originally aghast at the idea that I owned firearms. (full disclosure I'm in the full time military)
She asked me (to paraphrase) "Oh my gosh, you own ..... (trembling voice) .... GUNS!?"
And I told her yes. She then asked "Do you feel you may need to kill someone, or do you want to?"
So, long story short, when she came to visit me I took her shooting. Full safety course, eye and hearing protection, and lots and lots of .45 and .223 ammo.
Plus 10 one gallon milk jugs filled with colored water that she exploded with high velocity rounds while I took pictures.
At the end of it, she realized that guns are very safe, when handled properly, and I asked her (in the midst of her "high" from shooting):
"So, do you want to shoot a PERSON now?"
She got my point.
More than 90% of illegal gun use is done by people who own illegal guns.
Of the use by legal owners, that rarely gets reported, it's almost always to SAVE lives.
Remember Virginia Tech? The guy there didn't go to a Police Station to start shooting - everyone there was armed.
He did not go to the general population to start his homicidal murder spree - many citizens in Virginia are armed.
No, he want to a "Gun Free Zone", chained the doors at one end of the building and went to the other end, and cornered and shot the UNARMED students.
He went where no LEGAL gun owners could fight back.
Seriously, grow up and stop listening to people who put a political agenda ahead of the value of your life. What are you? A lemming?
full discloser: I am generally a liberal but i am firm on the right to bear arms. I am an Eagle scout, an NRA riffle instructor and I plan on entering the Air force when I leave collage. I am from California.
As the 2 anons above me have said, illegal gun use is performed by those who would not be stopped by a gun ban, at the very best they MIGHT if all access to guns and ammo were cut off switch to knives. In all likelihood they would still find access.
Furthermore let us look at Texas for a moment, they have the lowest crime rate in the country, mainly because the would be criminals are likely to get shot it they try something.
An armed society is a polite society.
Please, I am not asking you to own a gun, I'm not even asking you to know how, altho for safety reasons everyone should be familiar with the workings of a firearm to prevent accidents, to use one. Just let those of us who would rather be safe than dead own the firearm of our choice.
I am a proud gun owner and will always be. Your article wants to paint us as maniacal people who are seemingly on the edge of a meltdown that threatens to take a few of our fellow citizens with us. This cannot be further from the truth, I hope I never have to use mine beyond a recreational capacity. Also, I am entering in to a career in law enforcement in the near future...I can assure you that I will try my best to reach people in need as quickly as possible, unfortunately my father was also a cop and he let me know what can happen to people that call 911 and have to wait while someone is in their house or trying to kill them. I would rather be prepared. That's my two cents. Criminals are crazy, not law-abiding gun owners.
"Criminals are crazy, not law-abiding gun owners."
That's like saying, "Non-law-abiding gun owners are crazy, not law-abiding gun owners." Thank you for that revelation.
Also, for those of you not up on your legal rights, citizens are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Full disclosure: I'm Canadian.
Here in Canada, you need a license to own a gun, and until a few weeks ago (due to massive cost overruns), you needed to register every gun you owned, including rifles. I haven't decided yet how I feel about that. Anyways, now you only have to register hand guns. It is illegal, with a few exceptions, to own an assault weapon (or a switchblade).
I liked what I was reading above, until I got to "More than 90% of illegal gun use is done by people who own illegal guns."
I would've guessed it's exactly 100%, but I'll assume that's a typo, since the rest of your post was rather elegant.
My understanding of gun law in the United States is that any adult has the constitutional right to purchase a gun. I support that from an equality perspective — black lesbians have just as much of a right as old white men. The problem appears to lie in the fact that there are so few restrictions on gun ownership, that any person any acquire any number of guns, regardless of their usage intent.
That's pretty fucked up. Sure, if everyone at Virginia Tech had a gun, not as many people would have died, but if no one had a gun, no one would of died. Of course, the logistics of tracking down and destroying every gun in the US (billions of them?) are mind boggling, so I don't think an outright ban is an option.
I guess since you pay for your own healthcare, when you accidentally shoot yourself, or your drunk husband gets pissed at you because dinner is late, and pops you in the knee, you can pay for it. It's your own damn fault, right? Just like cancer?
Of course, it's interesting to note that the country with the most liberal (meaning non-restricting, not left-wing, you socialist-hating fear mongers) gun laws also has double the firearm-related death rate of any other country in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_...
Canadian, don't you think that a drunk husband is just as able to beat you with a baseball bat or stab you, if he didn't have a gun? How is that even relevant? In england, guns have been inaccessible to the general populace, and in the place of gun-crime is knife/sword-crime. No way to tell for sure, but there probably have been no lives saved by banning guns, as levels of knife/sword violence is far higher in england than the U.S. (while the U.S. obviously has more gun violence). If people are angry with murderous intent, it doesn't matter what weapon they have, they can kill.
Our constitution is being eroded enough as it is by the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis, nobody who cares that we don't turn into a socialist country (yeah, I said it) should let any illegal erosion of the constitution's authority continue.
Your understanding of U.S. firearm laws would be incorrect. With 20,000+ firearm laws, the notion that, "Anything goes" is simply wrong. For example, shotgun barrels must be at least 18 inches long. Who cares if it is less than 18 inches long (such as 17)? It makes no difference to performance, however; the prison term is 10 years. The U.S. and Canada are full is meaningless laws.
"The problem appears to lie in the fact that there are so few restrictions on gun ownership, that any person any acquire any number of guns, regardless of their usage intent."
To address the above statement:
Must be at least 21 to purchase handgun
Must be at least 18 to purchase rifle/shotgun
Drug use is disqualifying (marijuana asked by name)
Renouncement of U.S. citizenship is disqualifying
ANY FELONY CONVICTION is disqualifying
Domestic Violence (a misdemeanor) is disqualifying
Being committed to psychiatric center is disqualifying
The list of disqualifying actions are too numerous to list all.
Firearm ownership in the U.S. is theoretically a right, however; it is harder to exercise than obtaining a driver's license and much easier to loose and loosing a driver's license. A driver's license is considered a privilege. Explain that one?
Usage intent is not a qualification and only an idiot would state something illegal if it were.
Who cares how many guns one buys? How many can you shoot at one time?
As for the type/kind?
Just because you own a Corvette, it does not necessarily mean that you will drive 180 MPH down the road and endanger everyone. Would you argue that cars that can break the highest highway speed limit be banned? There is no use for them.
Does a firearm being black make it more evil?
If your Corvette was black, would it be faster?
Virginia Tech had a murder it which a girl was decapitated with a knife. It received far less attention. Perhaps because a knife was used. Does that make you feel better? If the mass murder had been committed with the use of a knife, chainsaw, baseball bat, etc. would you feel better about it?
As for Canada, I do not state an opinion on your health care system because I am not very familiar with it. I would appreciate it if you were to mind your own business since I can tell by your opinion that your knowledge of U.S. firearm laws and health care is even less informed.
Full disclosure: Stay in Canada
Full disclosure: I'm getting really annoyed at people starting comments with "full disclosure" and I may or may not pop a cap in someone's ass if it doesn't stop.
I invite you to study the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where a handful of Jews, with a few revolvers and a rifle, began shooting Nazi soldiers and taking their weapons. They then held off the German Army, from a City-wide Prison Camp, for (I believe: this is from memory) for 16 days, where the rest of Poland fell in only 10.
There were several Ghetto uprisings.
You can look to our own history. Study the "Deacons of Defense." These were an armed, militia-like group who acted as security for activists and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era in the US. MLK may have talked up non-violence, but he could do so because there were men ready to do violence to protect the ideas of equality before the Law. MLK is even reported to have carried.
We don't need to get into a debate on firearms. The Constitution preempts any debates: "...the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." [emphasis added]
That's pretty clear.
---KP
i would like to point this out whule were talkin bout guns here i play video games there are 20+ guns in my house . iget angry at people sometimes as does everyone else sometimes i think of shooting them as does anyone else dont try to say u dont think of it because then ud be fu**ing lying but have i killed anyone ? F*** no! in short Joe liarman if you are reading this, go f*** yourself i will not answer comments if you agree good for you if you disagree its not my problem , its your problem idiot
Post new comment