So,
In part 1, I discussed two rebuttals by gun owners in response to calls for more gun control laws. In part 3, I'll point out the inherent absurdity of the proposed gun control "solution" but today, I'm going to discuss the rebuttal from gun owners that I find lacking and the reasons why I find it wanting. One of my reasons is fairly common sense and the other shows how gun owners are helping to perpetuate a system hell-bent on seizing their guns.
The 1% have more control than ever and their actions, such as having their butt-puppet, The Great and Powerful Oz, sign NDAA into law demonstrates that they are afraid the people aren't going to take much more. Much of the hype by corporate media surrounding recent sensationalized incidents of violence in the United States has been fabricated or exaggerated while ongoing, massive violence by employees of the United States government is ignored by the same "concerned" media sources. The purpose behind the hype is to persuade those who are too stoopid to know better into supporting the 1% in disarming their enemy, the 99%.
They are just concerned about our safety.
Yes, that's obvious. Disarm the citizens and dissolve entire police departments. I'm feeling safer already.
Not to worry. When the police prove to be inadequate, expect to see the military called in to "protect" American citizens.
Who is going to protect the American citizens from the military?
You. Without. A. Gun.
Do you think they would be content with a 2 out of 3 bout of rock, paper, scissors?
Not likely.
However, there is a push by quite a few people to reach out to military and law enforcement officers in an effort to convince them that attacking Americans violates their oath (in addition to being just plain evil). Speaking of oath, if the two of you are quite finished hogging my blog, it's an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution, or rather the 2nd Amendment, is the third common argument that I see put forth by gun owners as a rebuttal for stricter gun control and it is by far the weakest of the arguments. I understand the desire to throw into the mix. The two, more powerful rebuttals, are rejected so there is this feeling that adding another argument may help. However, in addition to lacking the strength of the other two arguments and continuing a defeating mindset, it acts as a distraction from the better arguments. While the two sides bicker about the meaning of the oddly worded amendment and attempt to read the minds of people long since dead, better arguments sit idle.
The common sense problem with using words written on a piece of paper by the rulers of the country is that the rulers can write new words on a piece of paper (or simply just ignore the "god damned piece of paper"). When the rulers do write new words on a piece of paper and your argument was based on the previous words on a piece of paper, your argument is gone. The possibility that the rulers will write new words on a piece of paper brings up a new argument from gun owners.
Whether or not the new piece of paper is made out of recycled materials.
Or from the skin of someone who stood in the way of ExxonMobil.
Our rulers would never do that, would they?
I'm pretty sure I heard Obama say, "It puts the lotion on its skin," before his last drone attack.
"This drone attack was brought to you by ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, bringing you a brighter tomorrow."
Unless you were the family hit by the drone.
The main thrust of the new argument is on the sacred nature of the Constitution and how changing it would be very, very, very, very wrong. However, if you bring up changes that abolished slavery or allowed women to vote, the response is, "Well, yeah, those changes were right." This drops the entire discussion into the realm of the subjective with both sides arguing about the nature of allowable or "right" changes. Neither side can win this debate because it's a matter of personal opinion. Easily changed or ignored words on a piece of paper that invokes debates based on a person's point of view completely deballs the Constitutional argument against gun control.
Yeah, but what if I used the Constitution to make a paper airplane drone?
Then you'd have an argument that was lost in the next gust of wind.
Not only does the 2nd Amendment rebuttal to gun control score a zero, it has the potential to reaffirm an
insidious belief system in those making the argument. This paradigm is anchored more deeply each time a statement is uttered such as, "The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to . . ." This creates or continues the illusion that people have 2nd Amendment rights. They don't and it's a very dangerous belief.
WhuchyoutalkinboutWillis?
I hate to say this but I'm with the goofball on this one.
People are constantly discussing their Constitutional rights (in fact, I have done so often in the past) as if they exist. The danger of this mindset, of believing that the Constitution gives people rights, goes back to the heart of what the Constitution is: words on a piece of paper written by the rulers. If it were the case that people were given the right by the words on the paper to own a gun, all the rulers would have to do to take away that right is change the words on the paper (or write new words in the form of a "law" that "nullifies" the right).
The truth is that you have human rights based on the fact that you are human. You might call these inalienable rights. You have them by the mere fact of being you. They aren't granted to you by words on a paper. You have these rights, period, not because they were bestowed upon you by some corporation (even one with an impressive name like The United States of America, Inc.).
Can I buy stock in that corporation?
You are the stock in that corporation.
What people habitually call a "Constitutional Right" is actually a "Constitutional Restriction" on the allowable actions by the rulers. You don't have a right to own a gun because of the 2nd Amendment. You have the right to own a gun because humans have the right to own property. People do not have the right to take your property without your consent. Since the rulers exempted themselves from this basic moral principle, they had to put some assurances down in writing (2nd and 4th Amendments) for the people that they, the rulers, wouldn't just take stuff from people without a good reason.
But don't the rulers get to decide what amounts to a "good reason?"
Very good, Grasshopper.
By incessantly arguing about the 2nd Amendment granting the right of the people to bear arms, the false notion that the government gives people rights is ingrained even deeper. The truth of the matter is that governments can't grant rights which are inalienable, they can only violate those rights. In fact, their whole existence depends on violating the rights of people. If the rulers can somehow get the people to believe and act like their rights are derived from the government, the people can be more easily controlled. If the people trap themselves in this mindset, the rulers don't have to openly expose the true basis of their control, their willingness to initiate violence against the people.