11 January 2013

You're Doing It Wrong.

I have mostly refrained from discussing the verbal diarrhea about an "assault weapons ban" that has been taking place over the past several weeks, but I find that my positions on this matter have started to solidify, and thus I find it high time to lay them on the table. For starters, I am ANGRY - as in super ripshit-pissed, veins bulging, crush-a-beer-bottle-with-my-bare-hands furious. Angry that bowl-cut aspie shitweasels raised by single mothers are getting undeserved attention, which means there are more of the same who will see that they too can become a household name if they pick up a rifle with scary black polymer hardware hanging off of it and spill the blood of the people who "wronged" them, or whichever other target they choose. Angry that every copycat of Klebold & Harris just serves to wreck everything for gun owners like me.

The legions of troglodytic moral busybodies were chomping at the bit for an Aurora or a Sandy Hook, as any gun control legislation needs a body count in order to justify it. "Somebody doooooo something!", bleat the hordes of effeminate soldiers of social justice. The mayors and senators and cabinet members, with their 'round-the-clock, gun-toting security details, are more than happy to oblige. As Jack Donovan mentions in his recent article, Police State Progressives, the left, generally speaking, is no longer interested in restraining the enormous security apparatus that has grown so quickly and quietly over the past decade and a half. After all, now that "their nigga" is running the show, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DailyKos or Indymedia poster who wouldn't bat an eye if tomorrow morning brings an executive order for federal, state, and local law enforcement to round up every "teabagger" and toss them in a North Dakota labor camp. They are more concerned with flash hiders, folding stocks, and shoulder things that go up than they are about all the warrantless wiretapping, seizure of private property, and the drone surveillance that got them so riled up from 2001 to late 2008.

Progressives have no principles, other than "as long as the people I agree with are in power, everyone else can get fucked". I remember all the butthurt and the shrill whining that went on regarding how all the 'Murrican Patri'ts were demonizing and stereotyping Muslims based on the actions of a tiny minority of violent extremists. The word "Islamophobia" was rapidly coined. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - their niggas are in office, and the wind seems right for them to enact policies they've been lusting after for so long - all the hand-wringing and big talk about not punishing the many for the deeds of the few has flown out the window, right alongside their opposition to Camp X-ray staying open for business, and military actions that don't have Congressional approval.

Now, let's turn from what utter pricks progressives have shown themselves to be to what gun owners really ought to be saying & doing.

Case in point: Piers Morgan vs. Breitbart's Ben Shapiro

I'll get right past the obvious - that Piers Morgan doesn't know his elbow from his asshole when discussing firearms, and that he most certainly is exploiting the deaths of children to fit his policy views - and cut to the heart of the matter. This question is asked time & time again: "why do civilians need assault weapons?" While the question should more accurately be phrased "why do civilians need semi-auto rifles in intermediate calibers that share some cosmetic features with common military carbines", the common answer from the pro-self-defense (see what I did there?) crowd usually stops at "well, I don't think felons & the mentally ill should have them" or perhaps a half-hearted "it's to defend against tyranny".

There are 1 of 2 correct answers. The first, and more civil of the two, is "Civilians should not be prohibited from possessing these types of firearms because according to US Code, all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered the unorganized militia, and militias were intended to be a check on not only centralized bureaucracy, but a standing army as well. Besides, why should innocent people get shafted just because some head case decides he's had enough of society and wants to take anyone he can down with him? In addition, that's pretty bigoted and judgmental, that you would cast such aspersions on millions of people, the vast majority of which have barely a parking ticket among the lot of them." The second answer is "Because maybe there will come a time in the near future when I have to defend myself against fuckfaces like you who think it is their right to tell me what I can and cannot possess, and to defend myself against agents of the same fuckface government you want to elect." 

Same goes for demonstrating a right to own 30-round magazines: 1st answer would be something like "If I am faced with more than one individual who seeks to do me harm, I am not willing to take the risk that however many rounds you would like to limit me to will be sufficient to stop my attackers if I miss some of my shots. I could carry 3 10-round magazines, but I probably won't be wearing a vest with magazine pouches should a lot of trouble come a-knocking at 2 in the morning." The 2nd answer is "Contrary to what you've learned in video games & movies, life doesn't have 'auto aim'. Also, because it's not your place to decide, fuckface."

In the CNN segment, Morgan is unwilling to address the hundreds of gun-related homicides in cities like Chicago and Mogadishu West Washington, DC. Why, do you ask? Simply put, because it is easier to force suburban whiteys to comply with legislation than it is to do the same to the feral, coffee-colored residents of Chicago. Frankly, nobody in gun-ban fantasy world wants to address *that* can of worms. Why do that when you can go after the low-hanging fruit and then give yourself a pat on the back because you "did something about it"? Loud is the wailing and the gnashing of teeth when white children die in "gun-free zones" at the hands of boys raised by single mothers, and men who are marginalized by feminism, but when it comes to the question of taking guns away from criminals (those people who don't like to follow laws) you can hear that pin drop. Almost as quiet as those times when police empty a few dozen rounds inside people who were removing their wallets from their pockets.

In the end, though, gun control has been and will continue to be a way for urban elites, who have the money and influence to circumvent practically any law they want to, to exercise more control over poor whites and the brown people those elites claim to support. Maybe I'll consider handing in my 30-round mags and shoulder things that go up when the police and private security contractors that keep a constant watch over Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, and David Gregory hand in theirs first.

No comments:

Post a Comment