I was laughing so hard I thought my stomach was going to
split in two. One of my best friends and I were in a “Facebook Fight”
over why American citizens should still have the rights to bear arms. We
had just given up hope of swaying our opponent to our side, and decided
to send him pictures of animals with guns. It was hilarious. At least
we thought it was. J.B. Ghetto Crime Fighter (Let’s just call him that
no real names please) I truly believe has a heart of gold, but he just
won’t agree with us. Why oh why can’t he just admit there we’re right?
The funny thing is he’s probably thinking the exact same thing about us.
That incident took place a few months ago but now he gun issue has
returned.
It is my experience that people who are the Ghetto Crime
Fighters of the world. (People who want to civilize the word according
to their rules and beliefs) Have the best of intentions, but only the
intentions that they want to stipulate. I think they want to do good,
but their definition of helping people is telling them what they think
should do, instead of asking them what they need, and trying to help
them achieve it. If they aren’t open to really listening to people, they
are never going to achieve anything that way.
They are just going to come across as condescending,
ignorant, arrogant, and ruin any chances of coming to a real consensus
on any issue. If you really want to help, really listen to what the
people you want to help are trying to say.
I had a friend to hound me about the dangers of guns and
patiently read his rant about the Los Angeles Riots. It was kind of
humorous to listen to his rant. Myself being a person who actually
experienced the Los Angeles Riots instead of watching it on television. I
remember having complications of Asthma, watching familiar places that I
knew burn to the ground. Being a child, I remember ash falling from the
sky, and the sun turning red. Being indoctrinated by the fearful side
of Christianity at the time I was expecting one of the four horsemen of
the apocalypse to appear any second. I thought this must be the end of
the world. Having the National Guard walking around my neighborhood,
some heroic, some paranoid and power hungry didn’t help calm my nerves
either.My father had a store, and also in his possession a gun. I truly
believe the gun was one of the main things that help save his business
and his life.
The thing is, I can see that myself and the “Ghetto Crime
Fighters” of the world want the same things for humanity, but the thing
that breaks my heart is that we both think we are right about our ideas
on trying to achieve these things, and neither one of us is willing to
concede.
Personally when it comes to issues of gun control, I’m
not trying to win an argument, I’m trying not to end up dead in a
ditch. Yeah that’s what I said, “Dead in a ditch” To me this debate is
about life or death.
I’ve recently been re-awakened as a student of history.
When I think of gun banning I think of the millions of people that were
slaughtered because they were either disarmed, or they didn’t have the
strength to match power with their oppressors in a tyrannical
government. Even though there has been a proposal to ban assault
weapons, and high capacity magazines, how much of a fighting chance Am I
going to have if I have hand pistol against a person with mal intent,
who has a semi-automatic weapon?
As George Orwell - author of 1984 - pointed out in the Tribune
(October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny
partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current
weapon of choice possessed by the government:
The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow
of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over
again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I
think the following rule would be found generally true: that
ages
in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will
tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap
and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example,
tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical
weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are
inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong
stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to
it--gives claws to the weak.
Criminals don’t fill out applications
If you think they do. You are greatly disillusioned.
They’re criminals! When a sick twisted person wants to commit a crime
they’re going to find away to do it. They’re going to get their guns
from crooked policemen, military, or other black market means. Therefore
all law abiding citizens who are willing to pay the fee, get a license,
get training, teach their children about gun safety, and keep their
guns hidden away are going to be left defenseless if they are denied the
right to bare arms, and the psychopaths are going to have a field day.
I sent someone a video explaining how gun control through
out history has led to abominable circumstances resulting in mass
genocide when a government abused their authority over defenseless
people. The response I got was an Eddie Izzard comedy clip based on his
vision of what a stereotypical gun owner looks like to him. It got me
thinking…
I feel the people that are pro gun control have this
image of pro gun owners being a crazed gang banger, or a toothless
hillbilly. Both in their eyes too savage, uneducated, or feeble minded
to make an “educated decision” for themselves. While looking for
arguments on pro gun control, I came across a video on Youtube of a guy
who stated that he wanted a logical rebuttal to the pro gun argument,
but he was only accepting opinions from people who came from a
left-brained mentality, and was rejecting any form of feminist argument.
It was so insulting. He’s saying he’s open but he is telling you what
and how to think before he even hears what you have to say. That’s fake
liberal bullshit if you ask me. He’s not interested in any real change.
He’s interested in his point of view and being right.
You can’t always win by using logic and statistics.
I can argue my side and you can argue yours but at the
end of the day people base their opinion on their belief systems. In the
past I have presented my list of facts, statistics ect… from what I
would deem to be credible sources only to have someone comeback with
their own facts and statistics from what they deem to be their own
credible sources and oppose my view.
Most people are quick to ask for references, facts, statistics, and
such from an opposing point of view. But never really do their due
diligence on their point of view or analyze why they came to the opinion
that they have now. Honestly unless they have ample expertise or
personal experience about the subject they are talking about, they’re
basically trusting the credibility of the people who are giving them
information. They most likely aren’t researching their intentions, or
their credibility. They just accept it, if it supports their belief and I
guess that’s good enough for them. ( I have been guilty of doing that
at times myself)
Sometimes we might look at the information that we send
to each other, or sometimes the opposing side might respond to me by
saying they don’t have time to research useless conspiracy theories. In
which in that case if they are choosing to remain ignorant in order to
appear intelligent that defies all logic to me, and there is nothing
more I can do for that person. I personally will look at both sides.
I’ll gain more information that way anyway what do I have to loose
right?
Back to the Gun thing.
Do I like guns? No I personally don’t like guns. I don’t
even own one but I’m thinking about it. I guess It took for me being in
the Los Angeles Riots, having a gun pulled on me, and having been in a
lock down as a teacher twice for me to make the connection that people
who have guns are going to go after people who don’t have guns, and that
guns are only as safe as the people who carry them. If anyone can find a
way to make all guns disappear off the face of the earth that would be
great. As long as they are in existence, I feel that people are people,
and guns are only as safe as the people who use them.
I have these questions to ask.
If our government has the best of intentions for the people, why are
they looking to disarm law abiding citizens? And if they seek to do so
don’t they know that is most likely going to start a civil war?
If they have our best intentions in mind why don’t they look at the
pathology of our romanticized gun crazed culture caused by video games,
and violent movies and open up a dialogue about that?
Why aren’t they looking at the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause psychosis? (You can read it in the insert)
Why don’t they look at a long term plan for slowly decriminalizing
drugs over a period of time since gun violence is connected, due to the
fact that people have to go underground to get drugs, they commit
violent crimes in order to obtain them.
Why do they treat drug addicts like criminals instead of trying to
heal them? To me those are more logical plans for diminishing gun crime.
Why don’t you lead by example President Obama? You can start by
getting rid of your body guards with guns… What’s that you say... you
are using your guns to protect yourself from psychos? Why so are we,
what a coincidence.
Another argument I would like to address is the argument that I’ve
heard that says, “You wouldn’t allow everyone to own a nuclear weapon
would you?” Well of course not silly, but people who commit gun crimes,
are usually trying to get something they want from someone that they
can’t get by other means. Meaning money, sex, drugs, or other objects.
It would be useless for them to carry nukes around because they are
going to kill themselves and everyone else. That would defeat their
purpose.
Also why only is America and a few other countries allowed to have
nuclear power? It’s because America and their friends basically can
bully other countries into getting what they want. They know if America
has a nuke then they are not going to mess with America. But if they had
a nuke of their own it would level the playing ground and America is
less likely to mess with them because they know that they would be
putting their own life in danger. To me it’s the same analogy with guns.
A person who has a gun is less likely to mess with another person who
has a gun. They are going to go after the un-armed person.
Ghandi and the Dali Lama have made statements justifying the use of
arms. Not necessarily to kill anyone but to defend yourself if
necessary.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest ...
if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.
And as quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be
reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a
fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
As for the Sandy Hook shooting and the mother of Adam Lanza (If you
believe the official story. I personally don’t but that’s another essay)
If she knew she had a mentally disturbed son, and she allowed him easy
access to guns in her house, I’m sorry to say that was a lack of poor
judgment on her part, and it devastates me, that so many people had to
die as a result. Although, I’m positive that less people would have died
if they had armed security or teachers.
And yes of course be responsible by doing a background check, and
have people get weapons and safety training. But isn’t that’s what you
have to do in order to get a license anyway? I’ve heard people say they
need to crack down on those laws. But they’re forgetting one thing. How
are you going to crack down on criminals who don’t obey laws? Are you
going to write them a ticket? Um… yeah let me know how that works out
for you.
