Guns and Thorn-filled Roses

When the shooting in Tucson took place almost two weeks ago, I didn't follow it at first. Sadness and news often hand-in-hand and I had no need for brutality to be the root cause for the sadness. I mean, what bitter irony that a little girl was born on the day when a small group of madmen took down two skyscrapers in New York, only to have her life ended by a single madman nine years later. I just didn't need to hear that garbage then.

I quietly endured the initial wave of liberal pundits blaming their ideological opponents for the shooting, which is how that business rolls. I mean, Rush or Sean or Glenn blamed their opponents for everything under the sun when they had the chance. And I knew that once again gun regulation would show its ugly head, because it is so easy to target guns. (Along with political enemies on a website map.) But when it comes to the issue of guns, all I ask is for some honesty. Please just say what you think: You don't want any guns to be legal.

Instead, people opposed to the Second Amendment dance about the issue with a variety of arguments, all of which are bunk. Below are some of the main arguments and why they don't hold water.

1. "You don't need a 15 round clip" or "you don't need handguns to hunt deer" or "you don't need assault weapons to do whatever it is you want to do."

The key word with this point is the word "need." They are correct; no one "needs" large magazines or scopes or Teflon bullets. In fact, no one "needs" guns for anything. So what? What I "need" is utterly irrelevant. Needs are very limited for humans. We need food, shelter, clothing and love. That is it, that is all we ever need to survive. But we have much more than that don't we? Our homes and cars and offices are filled to the brim with all kinds of wants, aren't they? So how about we go after what you "need" versus what you "want?"

No one "needs" a home with 2 1/2 baths, since all that we do in bathrooms can be accommodated with one. Therefore, let's ban homes with more than one bath. You don't "need" a car with GPS or anti-lock brakes or Bluetooth technology, since cars are just to get us from point A to point B. While we are on it, you don't "need" a V-6, so let us rid ourselves of all the things we don't "need." Internet. Central air. More than two pairs of shoes or one purse. Televisions. Phones. None of those are "needs", so may I go around and point out the stuff in your life that I don't feel that you "need?"

Does someone "need" massive magazines or high-powered rifles? Nope, not one little bit. But they may want them, and the Constitution says they are entitled to own them.

2. "Our Founding Fathers couldn't have known that guns would become so lethal and there is no way that they would have allowed such weapons to be privately owned."

This is my favorite one. Alright, let's assume that the group of men we collectively call the Founding Fathers, who possessed great wisdom and intellect, never foresaw the advancement of firearms. Why we should assume this is beyond me, since weapons technology is usually at the cutting edge of invention and the Fathers were not ignorant of history, but let's go with it. The Fathers never thought we would move past muskets and swords.

Following that logic, I think we can also assume that our founders would have never envisioned the internet or instant world-wide communications. So if the argument is that advances in technology warrants the end of the 2nd Amendment, surely the same can be said for the 1st as well? I don't think that if Madison had known about Twitter or wikileaks he would have allowed for freedom of the press. Therefore, we should limit freedom of the press to the technology level of that of 1787 - hand presses using movable type and letters and packages carried by horse or ship.

3. "There is nothing wrong with common sense laws regulating guns."

I love it when someone uses the phrase "common sense" to cement their argument. It makes the reader feel that to argue their point is to argue against sense and logic. But beyond that, what regulations are you talking about? And why not apply common sense limits to other freedoms? How about a three day waiting period to publish a news story? How does a background check on every blog entry you make grab you? Ask Planned Parenthood how they feel about "common sense" rules regulating abortion or the Libertarian about how they feel concerning "common sense" laws and drug usage.

4. "There is no way we could use our guns to fight the government now like our Colonial Americans did, so there is no need for the 2nd Amendment."

Wrong. Before I get into a military reasoning as to why that argument is wrong, does anyone know why the Minutemen fired upon the British at Lexington and Concord? It wasn't because of high taxes or a lack of real representation in Parliament. It was because the British were coming after a store of guns. That was the tipping point of our rebellious sentiment: They were coming after our guns, and without guns, we had no chance to fight back. (By the way, the "guns" the British were seeking were real guns, and by guns I mean cannons. That's right...the people we admire were stockpiling the 18th Century equivalent of a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30 round clip filled with Teflon bullets and a flash suppressor.)

Now, as anyone who studies military history can tell you, small groups of soldiers using guerrilla tactics can bring about the defeat of a well armed and organized army. Viet Nam, anyone? Trust me, if the NRA is right and the Fathers gave us the right to bear arms as a mean to keep the government from becoming oppressive, then handguns, rifles and shotguns are more than enough to accomplish such a feat.

If there were to be another Revolution, 3-5 million guys hiding in woods and city buildings armed with the type of weapons sold in many stores would be a fearsome foe. You must also consider that: Many of the men fighting would have combat training or experience; that more powerful weapons would be confiscated from dead federal troops or armories; that at some point actual soldiers would defect to the side of the rebels granting more experience and weapons; and that, as Napoleon pointed out, "morale is to tactics as three-to-one." In other words, people fighting for freedom fight much harder than those wishing to oppose freedom.

So if you want to get rid of guns, just say so. Say you think that police and soldiers are to be trusted more than your neighbors and that there is nothing to fear from a government which wants an unarmed citizenry.

Than spend about five minutes researching the first thing dictators did in the last 100 years when they came to power and get back with me.