Gun Control – Always Three Issues Rolled Into One – To Distort Truth & Reality & Muddy The Waters Of Public Discourse!

AR-15 (Termed Assault Rifle)

What are the three issues? The first issue that must be resolved in order for anything to have meaning is: “Does a human being have the right to self defense?” If he/she/it does, then the second question is what tools are legitimate and permissible to own and utilize. If he/she/it does not have the “right”, then end of discussion.

Realistically, self defense is a mano a mano (man to man, hand to hand) event. Obviously, there are military tactics and warfare that include the use of jet fighter planes, rockets, bombs etc. We are not talking about those. What we are talking about based upon a 1968 Black’s Law Dictionary definition of arms is; “Anything a person can pick up in their hands and hurl in anger at another.” “Hurl”, of course, would make one think of rocks and bottles, but it could include bullets, knives, spears, fists, feet etc.

The discussion would therefore have to lead to some sort of reality. If you are a 90 year old osteoporotic lady standing 5′ 2″ tall and weighing 105 lbs., then it would be impossible for you to defend yourself against a 25 year old physically fit man standing 6′ 2″ tall and weighing 220 lbs. with any alternative methods. There needs to be an equalizer, which by the way, in the old west, was the term coined for a gun – “The great equalizer“.

Now, it might, not likely, be possible for that 90 year old woman to throw a rock or bottle at the 25 year old man, but could she throw it hard enough and accurately enough to hit its mark and do any significant damage or deter the attacker? And for a 90 year old woman to try and defend herself with a knife would put her in great jeopardy as the attacker could easily wrest it from her grip. Certainly an osteoporotic 90 year old woman would be in no position to use Krav maga, Karate or some other marshal art to defend herself against the said described 25 year old man – no arguments there except from some insane person maybe. And, even more certainly, the 90 year old woman would not be able to flee and outrun the 25 year old man.

The woman’s deficiencies would have to lead a person to conclude that the 90 year old needs something to put her on an equal footing with the 25 year old man. A grenade would work, but may not be practical in tight quarters and may even end up killing the 90 year old woman. A nuclear bomb would be out of the question. Pepper spray might or might not work – no assurances it will. A baseball bat would only make him angry if she could even successfully make contact. But a gun? Now she has an equal footing even if the 25 year old man has a gun also. His size is no longer an advantage to him, and it may even be a disadvantage as he makes for a bigger and better target than she is. This should be sufficient argument to justify a gun as a legitimate tool of self defense for those who agree that people have that right.

Now, comes the third argument which is the real rub in the whole debate and comprises two parts; one who has the right, and two, what is a legitimate gun. Let’s tackle the “who” first. Based upon the Constitution’s wording of the 2nd Amendment, there are no restrictions whatsoever as to who may own and bear arms. With that in mind, it is reasonable to assess a situation based upon past performances. If someone has abused their 2nd Amendment right, then can they be stripped of it? This is a very contentious issue. Let’s try a “what if” here and see how it works. A man buys a gun and goes into a grocery store and robs the owner, but he only threatens harm, he doesn’t actually shoot the gun or hurt anyone other than to steal some money.

This kind of thing happens all of the time. It is not a benign abuse of the 2nd Amendment, but it is not as egregious as it could be. In a civilized society, this person would be subject to severe penalties under the law, but in today’s American society, the indulgence of criminal behavior by the courts and politicians is such that the penalty might be very mild. What if that same person repeats his actions? In a Biblically based society, someone like that would be subjected to capital punishment. In today’s society, capital punishment is almost non-existent, and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars to implement it if it is not already outlawed in the state where the offense took place. Early release for multiple offenses does not teach the criminal to repent and change his ways. Therefore the criminal is actually emboldened to take more and riskier criminal actions when the criminal believes that there will be no serious ramifications for their actions. This too adds to the desire of the law abiding citizen to be able to defend themselves.

Meanwhile, the robberies garner the attention of the politicians and prosecutors who turn the whole thing into a football game so they can attack guns instead of crime and criminals. This would also bring us to the “what” is acceptable as legitimate gun in the hands of a citizen. According to Federalist Paper #28, Alexander Hamilton said; “The purpose for the 2nd Amendment is so that a citizen may defend himself against a government that would betray him.” Whoa; whoever heard that argument before? Certainly on the fake news government controlled media that didn’t come to light, and certainly at your local government (misnamed “public”) school is that idea ever broached. So, let’s examine that just a tad. Again we are talking man to man activity, not fighter jet to man etc. We are talking here about that which a government agent (military or otherwise) would carry in the line of their duty. That would primarily come down to rifles, pistols and shotguns.

The “what” gets parsed even more to the extent that a gun should not have more than X number of bullets or magazine capacity. Bullets should not have certain characteristics such as armor piercing capability. Barrels on shotguns should not be shorter than… Guns should be single shot verses automatic. They should not be cheaply made (Saturday night specials affordable to the poor). And the list goes on – no bump stocks, no flash suppressors, no collapsible stocks, ad infinitum. It’s a chip chip chipping away at every aspect of the 2nd Amendment until there is nothing left. Requiring permission to buy guns and ammo is an infringement on the right to own and bear arms which, according to the Constitution “shall not be infringed“. Ask any attorney no matter how leftist, and he will have to concede that the term “shall not” is an imperative with no wiggle room. When you debate this issue with some ignoramus or a leftist (I’m being redundant), then be sure to establish the answer to part 1; “Does a person have a right to self-defense?”


Many Links Below – Become Informed!

Feel Free To Pass On Any Posts


Pensamiento Peligroso writes the truth as he sees it, and if it upsets you, then it makes you think! Subscribe for free – no ads!


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: