<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:
Many people use the addage "if you criminalize guns, then only criminals will own guns." While this is trivially true logically, (Ax(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))->~Ex(GunOwner(x) AND ~Criminal(x))), what people really mean is that criminals will still have guns while regular citizens won't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While your symbolic logic may be trivial to some, I'm a little rusty. Please explain it in English. Your answer won't
affect my position or remarks. I'm just curious.
Your premise that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal of gun control is incorrect. "Gun control" has but a single purpose. Mao was quite correct that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The real purpose of "gun control" is to transfer political power from the sovereign People to a corrupt elite that has commandeered the People's creation - government. It is part of an ongoing struggle between those who would subjugate others and those who have no such desire. This historic struggle between freedom and tyranny has been going on since the beginning of time. It was only with the founding of our Nation that mankind had its first whiff of truly free air. Alas, the tides of tyranny are as patient as the tides of the sea. America has been worn down by modern liberalism as surely as a rock on the beach will eventually succumb to the waves.
Your myopic analysis of stolen guns, supply lines and black-market economics completely misses the point (or was that
the point). "Gun rights" are not an end in themselves. Guns are the teeth of liberty.
Modern liberal protestations notwithstanding, "gun safety", "protection of the children", "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and similar phrases are simply emotional smoke screens meant to confuse the ignorant in a blatant move to obscure and obfuscate what is really going on.
As elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, we each have natural, inalienable rights (albeit occasionally limited on a right-by-right basis to ensure that others may exercise their
natural rights - for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, breeding Ebola-infected pigeons, or using suitcase nukes as piñatas).
If we have natural rights, they cannot (at some irreducible level) be justly subject to legislative or mob rule fiat. These rights are "inalienable", which Webster’s defines as: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
At this point, I'm not even alluding to guns or the right of self-defense. I'm speaking generically of the pantheon of innumerable natural rights that we all possess.
Given that we all possess a set of priceless, irreducible, inalienable
rights that are beyond the just capacity of democratic nullification by majority rule, it is incumbent upon us to ask ourselves, what form of government will best ensure that our rights are protected? (this necessarily being the primary purpose of government.) Note that our heritage of rights is the most precious gift we can hand down to future generations.
If, upon serious reflection, we agree with the Founders of this nation that a Constitutional Republic
might best do the trick, we might further ask ourselves what additional safeguards there might be that would discourage any would-be local, regional or national government servants from morphing into rights usurpers. We would necessarily reach the conclusion that the last ditch safeguard of our precious rights is our own use of force or the threat of force. Not coincidently, this right to use force to protect our other irreducible rights is itself irreducible and was spoken to explicitly in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Government's natural tendency is to subjugate the people and become tyrannical. This was well understood by the founders.
<blockquote>"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves."
The purpose of our Constitution is to restrain
government. Eventually, when enough constitutional safeguards have failed due to the never-ending attack on our American traditions, culture and institutions by the tide of modern liberalism, our government will have only one thing keeping it from becoming the omnipotent Orwellian police state to which it aspires: the shotguns, rifles and handguns squirreled away by the lovers of freedom all over this land. Unfortunately, by then it might very well be too late.
The last thing a potential rape victim should do is willingly allow herself to be handcuffed by her kidnapper. Once captured, rape and death are probable. Escape is unlikely. But once the handcuffs are on, escape becomes impossible and rape or worse becomes a certainty
Asking the People to buy into sophisticated disarmament arguments is like the kidnapper/rapist plying his prey with liquor, sweet talk and promises of a real good time - if only she'll put on the handcuffs.
Well, expecting us to willingly put on your handcuffs (give up our guns) is not just stupid, it is traitorous, it is national suicide, and it is a hideous, unthinkable betrayal of not only our freedoms, liberties, rights and heritage, it’s a betrayal of our children and grandchildren.
Which of our inalienable rights are you
willing to see vanish soon after guns have been outlawed? If you believe you can keep your freedoms after our guns are gone, think again. However, the proof that a people, armed with inferior weapons, can stand up against the might of a military super-power has already occurred. Afghanistan immediately comes to mind.
Not sure what inalienable rights I’m referring to? Here’s a short
list (there are others not listed as pointed out in the 9th Amendment). Which are your
next choices to fall after
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
Freedom from subjection to ex post facto laws
Freedom from unjust imprisonment (habeas corpus)
No unjust government taking of life, liberty or property
Freedom of exercise of religion
Freedom of speech and press
Freedom of assembly
No cruel and unusual punishment
Two witnesses required to convict a person of treason
No punishment of families of a person convicted of treason
No quartering of troops
No warrantless searches or seizures
Grand jury protection
No double jeopardy
No unjustly compensated taking of private property
Right to a speedy trial
Right to trial by impartial jury
Right to trial in the location where crime occurred
Right to confront witnesses
Right to require witnesses to appear in court
Freedom from excessive bail
Freedom from excessive fines
How about the freedom
of ourselves and our families to be left alone
It may be too late to prevent the nightmarish world you are proposing to drag us into (kicking and screaming, I might add). And frankly, those of the communist, socialist, statist and modern liberal ilk (but then I repeat myself) might ultimately win. You may yet get the police state you describe and dream of. History has been pushing us toward tyranny for 150 years. We, the people, might get raped in the end. But it will not
be with handcuffs on, and the rapists will have to pay dearly for their pleasure.
<blockquote>"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790,
printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle,
January 14, 1790.</blockquote>
As for me, I won’t accept your sweet talk and promises of a real good time – and I’ll never
allow you to put me or my loved ones into your handcuffs.