Contrary to what Piers Morgan may think

We’ve been here before: a school massacre, media saturation coverage, the anti-gun lobby in full, furious flow, seeking to pin the blame on responsible gun owners and the NRA for the act of one crazy individual.

Reasoned debate is difficult in these circumstances. There is nothing more emotive than such a senseless slaughter, and the gun-grabbers intend to keep that emotion stoked long enough to push through their pre-set agenda, but whatever controls they enact cannot prevent another attack, neither will another attack make them doubt the sense of the controls they impose now. Rather, the logic of the interventionist is thus; we have tried X, it didn’t work. Let us try more X. Never will it occur that; maybe X wasn’t such a good idea.

Ban high capacity magazines, they demand. What the hell difference does this make, when the cops are five or ten minutes away? It takes two seconds to change a magazine. Ban assault weapons, they demand, no civilian has a right to own a military weapon (we’ll come to this next). Again, what difference does this make to a crazy killer, especially one who chooses as his victims the most vulnerable and defenceless?

Now, as the question of the citizen’s right to own so-called military weapons is being called into question, it may be time to take a look at what the law actually says on the matter, because it’s pretty damned clear. There is no confusion on this point. Those who dispute it, do so because they don’t like what it says. The 2nd Amendment guarantees (i.e. recognises as pre-existing) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not for personal self-defence or hunting, but in case of the need to resist a tyrannical government, and as a deterrent to any government from becoming tyrannical. As such, the people have every right to such weapons, if not RPGs and Howitzers as well.

That’s no longer relevant, the other side declares. Fine. All you need to do, then, is amend the Constitution. There is a process. It has been used before. An amendment would need to clear Congress with a 2/3 vote in each House and then be ratified by the states. Good luck with that.

Assuming this doesn’t happen, Nota Bene: There are 80,000,000 gun owners in America, and a sizable minority of them, and let us hope we never know how many, are not going to hand over their guns, but will fight to the death to defend what they consider a God-given, inalienable and lawful right. If only one percent of gun-owners take the ‘cold dead hands’ approach, the federal government is facing the best part of 1 million people. Not only that, every law enforcement officer and military person has sworn an oath to the Constitution which obliges them to refuse any gun confiscation order, which would clearly be illegal, according to the Bill of Rights. They have every reason to remember their oath. Many of the gun-owners they would face are military veterans, as well trained or better than themselves, and most likely with a keener sense of the righteousness of their struggle.

An alternative to such an apocalyptic bloodbath would be for the states where gun-grabbers predominate to secede from the Union, seeing as they find themselves at such discord with the nation’s settled laws. Back before the Civil War (so-called), it was assumed that a state could leave the Union, and it was usually the northern states which threatened to do so, such as over the War of 1812, which was very unpopular in New England. Just a suggestion.

It must be assumed that the federal government will not attempt such a bloody strategy, and will instead try to impose lesser restrictions, with more onerous rules on buying guns, or types of guns or magazines, and more efforts to prohibit particular individuals from owning guns. Veterans are certainly being targeted, with the issue of mental health being used as a reason to ban them from keeping firearms.

What, however, lies behind this modern phenomenon of mass shooting? Simplistically blaming gun ownership ignores the fact that America has always been a gun-owning nation. Something else must have happened. One factor which seems to be almost, if not completely, constant in all such events is that the killer is on prescribed drugs of a certain kind. Although no doubt there were mass-shootings BP (Before Prozac), the rise of mass-medication coincides with the proliferation of this type of event. It could be said that people on these drugs are only on them because they are already mentally-unstable, but research does link them to psychotic episodes, and it is a matter of urgency to establish to what extent this type of drug may be causing people to do things no sane or moral individual could possibly countenance, given the staggering amounts of such drugs being prescribed.

It may seem counter-intuitive to the anti-gun lobby, but increasing gun control can only worsen the risk of massacres by deranged individuals, by preventing ordinary people from stopping such attacks in their tracks. All of these massacres over recent years have taken place in areas where citizens are prohibited from being armed. Therefore, no one is in a position to do the one and only thing guaranteed to stop the killer: shoot him dead. Indeed, these killers usually kill themselves as soon as they are confronted by someone else with a gun. This happened only the other day in the Clackamas mall shooting, but of course this part doesn’t get mentioned in the Guardian version.

Blaming the responsible gun-owners and the gun lobby may make the ‘liberals’ feel morally superior, but it won’t change anything. ‘Liberals’ want to “have the conversation”. Go ahead, but you won’t win the argument. Even if the ‘liberals’ are right that America without 300,000,000 privately-owned firearms would be safer than the America of today (yes, it’s plausible!), the genii ain’t going back in the bottle. Dangerous people, insane people, criminally-minded people will continue to possess or gain access to guns. You cannot change this fact, but you can choose how you respond to it, and, rationally speaking, given the circumstances, unless you can afford bodyguards like Michael Moore or the President with his motorcade of M134-mounted SUVs, your best bet is to get a CCP, buy a gun, and learn how to use it.


    1. Yes, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Let’s take a look at that amendment. Hmmm. The first clause states “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..” That is usually ignored in these libertarian stances. How does the idea of a well-regulated militia comport with the idea of an individual being allowed to acquire any weapon that is desired?

      The statistics are convincing: nations with gun control laws have a much lower murder rate.



      1. ” That is usually ignored in these libertarian stances”

        It’s not ignored at all, so you’re making a straw-man argument. Even if it wasn’t widely known what the word militia meant (i.e., if no one bothered to check the definition, and see how it was used in other contemporary documents), the second part of the Amendment still stands. Unfortunately for you, it’s very difficult to twist “shall not be infringed” into its antonym.

        Anyway, to illustrate you are wrong to accuse libertarians of ignoring the wording …


      2. Quite so Richard, The “cult of the preamble” (giving example reasons for the substantive clause) can be irritating (although it was a very common practice at one time) – because it allows people to later pretend they have not seen the substantive clause, and move the discussion to the preamble.

        However, no preamble actually negates the substantive clause. In this case “the right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.


      3. It isn’t a case of the “preamble,” or introductory clause, negating the “substantive clause” (the terminology here is moot at best), but rather that the sentence be understood in its entirety.

        To “keep” and “bear” had a sense to the framers of the Constitution that can only be understood in the context of a “well-regulated militia.”


      4. The word “militia” meant the same thing to the framers of the United States Constitution as it does now: “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” — The Oxford American Dictionary.

        This doesn’t have anything to do with individuals acquiring whatever firearms they wish to — there wasn’t any such thing as a concealed weapon when the Constitution was hammered out.


      5. All the Founders supported the right of individuals to own weapons (your claim that it is a miltia right ONLY) is false. You might as well claim that freedom of speech (First Amendment) applies only to a newspaper – not to individuals also.

        Your claim that “there wasn’t anyh such thing as a concealed weapon when the Constitution was hammered out” is also false. There were sword sticks, and one could conceal a pistol under coat or cloak.


      6. athume – you are wrong on constitutional law. So wildly wrong it is hard to believe you have actually read any works on the Second Amendment (I could suggest some if you wish). I do not think I will bother to discuss the Ninth Amendment with you – as if you find the Second so difficult…..

        And you are also wrong on your crime stats point – for example Britain had a very low murder rate when there was no “Gun Control” here and legal firearms were common.

        And, of course, urban areas that cross the American-Mexican border (i.e. exist on both sides of the border and are about equally hispanic on both sides) tend to have a murder rate some ten times higher on the noble Mexican Gun Control side than on the evil American right to keep and bear arms side.

        Whatever motivates the “Gun Control” crowd – the desire to reduce the murder rate is NOT it.


  1. The second largest armed force in the world went into the woods of America with their guns to shoot for weeks. Not one person died.

    It is not about America, not about Americans, not about assault rifles or guns. Not a common denominator.



    1. Cool, as I wanted to point out the anti-gun people don’t seem to know of any gun advocate group bar the NRA, and in fact there are many, such as Gun Owners of America, which is far less compromising than the NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Pink Pistols etc



  2. Quite so Richard. The NRA is actually the moderate voice – partly because it has been around so long and is rather set in its ways.

    My “favourate” anti NRA smear is the one from Mr M. Moore – who points out in one of his propaganda films that the NRA and the KKK were founded at about the same time “coincidence – I think not” says the film.

    And it is indeed not a coincidence – as the NRA was set up by ex Union army officers – partly for the purpose of opposing groups like the KKK.

    Far from being the same people, they were actually opposing sides – out to kill each other.



  3. Superb response, and when you argue these points, you’re labelled ‘a psychopath’.

    I think the main issue in the U.S that needs to be addressed however, is not the use/right of weapons. But access and the treatment of the mentally ill, all of these mass murderers have one fundamental similarity that is always overlooked – mental health issues. When asked about similarities, it’s always “they used guns”.

    And another thing that pisses me off (sorry for the language) is that the argument the 2nd Amendment is outdated. Just look at the Arab spring, and situation in Syria. They’re rising up against tyrannical governments for freedom (obviously there’s an element of Islamic fundamentalism in the mix, but I’ve spoken to a few Syrians studying over here, and all they want is freedom – they all agreed democracy, rather than theocracy is the best option for their homeland.

    And without weapons, how would these people rise up? They possibly couldn’t.



    1. “Pissed off” is allowed on this website 🙂

      There is an excellent “Obamalogic” meme going around on Facebook, that neatly expresses what you said about Syria, it’s on the Libertarian Home Facebook page too.



  4. Maybe what the US needs is not fewer guns, but fewer people who believe that using guns is the best way to deal with any possible conflict (including the imaginary!). Michael Moore also points out in Bowling For Columbine that Canada has LOADS of guns, but a very low murder rate with those guns, and points to a difference in culture. MM may be despised by the NRA (even though he is a member I believe) and the Right, but I think that that is a point well worth considering.



  5. Medusa Jordan – Mr Michael Moore tells many lies (especially in “Bowling For Columbine” which, like all his films, is a tissue of lies). However, he is (partly) telling the TRUTH on this specific point . There are high murder areas of the United States (although Colorado is not one of them).

    What Mr Moore “forgets” to point out is that the areas of the United States that have high murder rates are areas with the sort of semisocialist culture he favours.

    After all there are not many conservatives (let alone libertarians) in the murder capital of the United States – Chicago, Illinois.

    If you want to turn the United States away from lots of murders – then turn America away from the “Chicago Way”.

    Of course that would have to involve the retirement of Barack and Michelle Obama (who are very much part of the “Chicago Way” of couruption and brutality – see the book “The Culture of Corruption”).

    For example, the traditional approach of ex Mayor Daley Jr (the head of the Chicago Machine in which both Barack and Michelle served – and profited from) to dissent, was to have the legs of the dissentor broken.

    And under the new Mayor (Obama’s ex Chief of Staff) the violence in Chicago has got worse,. There are more murders in Chicago than there are in Iraq.

    In short…..

    The United States does not have “gun problem”.

    It has an “Obama supporter” problem.

    After all the vast majority of murderers in the United States are Obama supporters – just look at the high murder rate areas. And it is NOT just Chicago – L.A. (and so on) are also terrible.

    Paul looks over his shoulder as the word “drone” springs to mind.



    1. FYI: The American cities with the highest rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter are, in descending order (with the rate per 100,000):

      New Orleans 57.6
      Detroit, MI 48.2
      St. Louis, MO 35.5
      Newark 33.8
      Baltimore, MD 31.3
      Oakland, CA 26.3
      Kansas City, MO 23.4
      Philadelphia, PA 21.2
      Atlanta, GA 20.7
      Cincinnatti, OH 20.5

      Chicago’s rate is 15.9

      Put that in your political demographic pipe and smoke it.

      Politicians use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost — not for illumination, but for support.” Attributed to Hans Kuhn



      1. All these cities supported Barack Obama, The United States does not have a “gun problem”, it has an Obama supporter problem.


  6. Simon – if possible make it a county graph (although that will be difficult to do). That will show up that it is the Obama supporting counties that are the high murder rate areas.

    The media lie (“and water is wet”), even when a open leftist,such as the lunatic who shot Gabby G., shoots someone (or flies an aircraft into a tax office in Texas) the media just talk about “the Tea Party” and the “climate of hate”.

    The education system (the schools and universities) is no better than the media (indeed it is the reason the media is as it is), no doubt young people are being taught that “Tea Party” people commit the various crimes that are actually committed by leftists.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s