Posts Tagged ‘bombs’

Congressmen’s advice to women: “Don’t resist, just take it.”

Posted by Troy on 26th March 2018 in Current Events, Political

A congressman recently stated that the Second Amendment was outdated because small arms could not compete with jets and bombs.   So, I guess his advice to girls would be, “Look… he’s bigger and stronger than you.  Fighting will only make it worse.  Just lay back and take it…”

Now I will tear his argument apart:

1 – Congressmen that scoff at small arms in the hands of individual combatants should do the duties of our service members.  After all, Congressmen ask service members to sweep streets in Iraq/etc with small arms fire coming randomly out of windows, etc.  I am sure that, since small arm fire is no big deal, they would gladly switch places with our service members.

2 – It is asinine to think that a tyrannical government would bomb their populace.  The reason is that a tyrannical government views their populace, buildings, factories, etc as resources to be managed.  They have no problem with killing people (who would be considered more like cattle than individual human beings), but factories and buildings (etc) are expensive and have to be replaced and cut into their pockets.  How many tyrannical governments are there?  How often do you hear about them dropping bombs, wholesale, on an entire city?  Granted, there are times when a regime is in danger of dying (like in Syria), but by and large, this does not happen.  Granted, maybe this is because most populations are unarmed, so sending death squads into a city accomplishes the goal without having to destroy valuable real estate.

3 – The descent into tyranny does not go: “Okay we are now tyrannical… bomb the F_______ out of that city!”  If it did, I would hope that there would be a revolt in the ranks of the military and the military would depose the government.  A military coup is a bad thought, but I would like to think that an early attempt to move straight into bombing would be prevented by the military itself refusing to comply with the order.

4 – So you may ask: well, if you assume that the military wouldn’t bomb you, why do you think they would shoot you?  Dunno.  Ask blacks in Chicago about that.  Ask Native Americans about that.  Look, the military is made up of Americans.  If they were given an order to put down a insurrection, they would follow the order.  If the people are armed with rocks and the occasional illicit firearm, they would still do so.  Any deaths would be regrettable, but they would think that the random armed resister brought it on themselves.  There is a huge difference between this scenario and having to march through Atlanta where every single window becomes a potential sniper’s roost.  Where every corner and alleyway becomes a chance for ambushes or guerrilla warfare.  It would not take long under those circumstances for the military to turn against the oppressive government.

The Second Amendment is not outdated.

Long Live the Constitution!

Gun Control and Mayor Blooming Idiot

Posted by Troy on 15th April 2013 in Current Events, Political

I intend a certain amount of disrespect when I call him Mayor Blooming Idiot, but that’s just because I think he’s a fascist moron.  He’s living proof that intelligence and being a billionaire don’t have to go together.  Now he questions why a father would sell a gun to his son rather than just give it to him.  Of course, to a billionaire, maybe a few hundred dollars is but a tawdry sum not worth mentioning.  I can think of a few reasons, but I don’t think it really matters.  Here is the real issue.

Can anyone tell me how many of the guns used in mass killings were purchased illegally?  Has ANYONE thought to ask?  Does ANYONE care?  If you found out that they all came through a registered dealer and were obtained legally, would it even matter to you?  Of course, if you are against guns, that would merely prove your point that all guns need to be illegal, right?  And that’s what this is all about.  It’s about chipping away at the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens because they can’t possibly advance their agenda with the truth.

Do you care that none of the laws being proposed would have stopped any of the mass killing in the recent past?  And yet, we are treated to Obama leading around Sandy Hook survivors like trained ponies in front of the camera, begging us to advance his agenda, and for what?!  Are they just ignorant of the law?  Are the Democrats merely exploiting these people in a moment of pain the way the are trying to exploit all of us by putting these mourners on stage for us to gawk at like some side show freaks?

They claim that 90% of us are for expanded background checks.  First of all, I question how many of us care to be informed.  Most mass shooters do not have anything in their records that would have prevented them from purchasing guns to start with.  Actually, what would be a better solution is to force everyone to go through a thorough medical and mental screening every single year to address these types of issues and those who would be prone to commit other crimes.  So why don’t we do that?  Because it’s an invasive breach of our rights?   Because sacrificing the rights of everyone isn’t wroth the lives we’d save?

We do agree in background checks.  I would say that most people would even agree to adding background checks to gun shows.  However, what they are talking about doing is adding checks to every single gun sale even among friends and other private individuals.  Of course, the only way to accomplish or enforce this is to make a national registry.  This is, of course, what they say they do not want to do.  Over time, they will either lose interest in these meaningless background checks or they will push for a national registry.  I’m betting that the Democrats will do the second one.

Let’s accept something, and this is more poignant in the wake of the Boston Marathon attack.  In a free society, there are going to be cases where people break the law and bad things happen.  When this happens, you can do one of two things.  You can either accept that this is part of the human condition and punish the guilt, or you can take away the rights from everyone.  Bear in mind, doing the first one won’t make you any safer as criminals will continue to break the laws.

Which will you choose?

Long Live the Constitution!