She wrote the follwing reacting to the Ohio school shooting. And I just couldn't let it go unchallenged... Read away!
Ohio school shooting: Time to ban handguns, guys
Ms. Karvunidis,
I would like to
thank you for sharing your feelings about the latest horror caused by guns.
I too am horrified by the actions of another sick or wicked child in
men’s clothing.
Your vision of a
gun free world is hard to grasp. How do you propose to rid the US
If you had a
plan, and a realistic one at that, then I might actually listen to you. Since all you did is react from your feelings
rather than using logic to take this issue apart, you really aren’t in a
position to intelligently discuss the issue of “gun” violence. But, in a sense of friendliness, let me lay
out a few things you might want to think about and apply some logic to.
1. You cannot
find a single instance of a firearm loading itself and willfully killing
someone without a human hand controlling it.
This is the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill
people.” That psycho kid loaded the gun
and he pulled the trigger. He also willfully
got a gun he shouldn’t have had access to.
And he chose to use it to kill other humans. The gun made no decisions, had no voice and
performed no independent actions in this event.
2. You have
heard it before but here it is again, “If you take the guns from the law
abiding, the criminals will still have guns.”
Criminals are criminals BECAUSE they will break laws. Any laws.
Even laws banning guns on school property. And those laws banning minors from possession
of firearms. And laws making it illegal
to kill other humans. They will even
create guns out of pipe and wood if none exist due to a “successful” world-wide
gun ban.
3. And this is
the most important fact in my book, by Natural Law (look it up) I have a Right
to protect my self and my family from anyone bent on doing them harm. The Bill of Rights (look it up) codifies and
protects my preexisting Right to protect myself and my family with violence if
necessary. Today that is done through
the lawful use of firearms. I don’t
hunt. I don’t shoot for sport. I carry a gun every day because of kids like
this psycho.
I do own a
couple of those billion guns and if no one else had one, and that fact could be
proven to me, I would still keep mine.
Gun beats bat. Gun beats
knife. Gun beats mob. I plan on keeping mine.
So, with that
said, let’s say you and your ilk manage to get a nationwide gun ban in
effect. How do you plan on getting those
guns? Let me tell you now, I am
unwilling to walk to the local police department and surrender my
firearms. Will you send your kids or
your husband to get my guns? Not likely,
that would be dangerous. Will you
bravely come and ask for them? Nope. You will send the police. To force me.
And if I resist they should kill me?
Of course. Oh you sweet and
glossy idiot. You are touching something
very dangerous here and I don’t think you grasp the import of your foolish
words.
Your best bet is
getting some of your teachers armed to protect your kids. That is a far better solution to school
shootings than starting a huge war on the streets of your nation with your
attempt to get the guns away from the wicked and insane.
If having guns
in the hands of the crazy among us is the problem, then the issue to deal with needs
to be the effective and viable treatment of the insane. If the wicked are using guns to harm people,
then the wicked must be opposed by equal force and removed from society, either
to jail or the morgue.
It is just that
simple. Not perfect but simple.
Yours in
Freedom,
Sir,
ReplyDeleteI read your comment on "High Gloss and Sauce" - I wanted to give you (pardon the pun) more ammo to your arsenal.
When Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor other factors were in play. At one point the idea was floated of landing Japanese troops on the U.S. mainland. Even if they lost, which was unthinkable, of course, by the time they DID lose (if they did) the Japanese would have a stranglehold over the Pacific. Had they invaded Hawaii, they could have leveraged the West Coast and Hawaii for a U.S. concession for a Japanese equivalent of a Monroe Doctrine - U.S. stay out of the "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere".
Admiral Yamamoto had studied at Harvard in the 30's, living in America. He had seen American ideals on "fair play" and our gun heritage. It's how he knew America would be infuriated by the surprise attack, but also why he counseled the Japanese high command against an invasion of the United States.
He told them that invading the U.S. would be a disaster because "Behind every tree and blade of grass would be an American with a gun"
So - in response to Ms. Karvunidis : In a time of Fleet Carriers, machine guns, radar, airplanes, machine guns, radio and cyphers, mortars and artillery, one of the strongest most agressive and militaristic armies of the world did not invade the mainland U.S. PRECISELY because they knew that fighting an armed populace would have been an impossible proposition.
Additionally, as a member of the U.S. military (I am an NCO in a Cav Scout Sqdn) I can tell you that there is no way the U.S. military would, wholesale, simply "follow orders" and disarm U.S. citizens. We in the military discuss exactly this both in official briefings and around the "water cooler". Were that illegal order given by "Captain Smith", there is a better than even chance that "Captain Smith" would find himself relieved of command and placed under arrest.
Ms Karvunidis, should also note that in Chicago that the politicians who LOVE gun control carved out a special exception for themselves to that very law. Was that an accident, or a simple realization of reality.
Ms Karvunidis speaks from ignorance on many subjects. She also spouts liberal theory on any number of subjects. Liberals love theory and constantly want their utopian ideals foisted on others - and even when historical facts and precedent are shown to them they suffer from the mental disconnect of "it just wasn't implemented in the right way" disease.
So - when 150 million people in the last century die for their utopian dream, that's just an argument, not a moment of clarity.