Enablers of Tyranny and Crime

Sunday, January 2, 2011
Posted in category guns

Just like I refuse to the term “gay” to describe homosexuals (the term gay has nothing to do with sex), I am no longer using the term “gun control advocate.” Destroying another person’s freedom has nothing to do with ‘gun control.’ I call them promoters of no-gun legislation, because that’s what they do: use the power of government to keep you from making your own choices. Or I call them apostles of criminal rights. Or anti-self defense propagandists. Or pro-tyranny enablers.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to Enablers of Tyranny and Crime

  1. Aaron says:

    January 2nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    I just use the term “anti-rights activist” and call it good. Since you can’t pick and choose which rights you think people should have. Either I have the freedom to speak my mind AND protect myself or I don’t. I can’t have one and not the other, since removing either will quickly mean the removal of the other as well.

    I used this on an ACLU guy once and gave him my logic. He was stumped. He obviously left law school too early.

  2. Iluvatar says:

    January 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Ya know? Not much into guns.

    Was pretty fair w/ an M-16 (don’t put your fingers into the holes of the barrel, though! – you will burn them down to the knuckle in semi-auto mode!), shot ~96-99/100 @ 100 yds on the range @ the academy (we were supposed to take WHAT math course???). But then, I also had 20-10/13 eyes too (pilot qual’ed).

    But when I think of self-protection when things get “bad”, I am thinking a gun is about the last thing I’m gonna need (& I mean real bad).

    In that instance, I am thinking short-range power projection. Which would include an array of land mines (trip-wired), and shoulder-fired rocket launchers (infrared terminal homing equipped). And if things have to get to that level, and short combat is also required, I am thinking I would do a lot better (once the ammo is dumped) w/ a 12″ Bowie and a baseball bat.

    But that’s me.

    So, yea, guns? Not really interested. And as to the doomsday scenario? Low probability for about the next 5-8 years – this tyranny-onset is going to be so much more quieter than that – we let the unemployed die silently; and when they riot – the police shoot them dead. It’s how we deal with the “have-nots”. “Soylent Green” is so much more of a likely outcome for where we’re headed.

    But – by the same token – I could care less if someone else wants to get a gun. Said person should not be prevented from doing so – just be careful w/ that thing Dude!

    Don’t shoot yourself, keep it safe from your kids, and be careful in target practice, & don’t accidentally shoot a jogger (me! – actual occurrences in both LA & in the Mojave desert (boy did I scare their dog and them when I tracked up on them!)).

    I enjoy the wisdom of this phrase:

    “guns don’t kill people – people do.”

    Sort of like a recent prior post:

    “The reason your kid is fat ain’t `cause of the durn PS2, Dude! It is `cause you are lame-ass parent (you bovine Soccer/Pool Mom!)”

    Too much testosterone? Sorry, just started winter lifting…

    And yes, am I off from work today? Yes, thanks for asking…

  3. rtaylortitle says:

    January 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    I like the “anti-rights activists” slogan. I am hoping Texas comes to its senses as Arizona has and “legalizes” (actually the 2nd Amendment is a ‘natural’ right & should not be subject to any legalization) an open-carry policy.

  4. M. Terry says:

    January 4th, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Anti-rights tools is what they are.

    Guns are, in fact, also tools albeit the inanimate type.

    I’m not much into auto jacks or fire extinguishers, but I keep both in the car. I hope not to need one, but in the event that I actually do need one, I feel better prepared having one.

    There are a lot more scenarios than “doomsday” where a gun could be handy. Most folks don’t have access to claymore mines or rocket launchers. Besides, claymore mines can be turned around so if they’re either command or trip-wire detonated they fire their pellets the wrong way. A gun must be removed from the user to be used against same. Probably why military trains with and uses small arms and not just mines.

    Just wondering how one puts a finger down the muzzle of a .223 barrel. Seems that if someone managed to force their finger down a barrel less than a quarter inch in diameter they’d have more to worry about than just a burn.

    Knifes are fine for close quarters combat – unless the combatant already has you in his or her gun sights. A bowie looks good but certainly isn’t the optimum fighting knife.

    Good for all those folks who live in a places where they feel secure unarmed – although to remain safe, if it were me I wouldn’t go about advertising the fact.

  5. Iluvatar says:

    January 5th, 2011 at 1:36 am

    @ M Terry

    Enjoyed your point of view.

    Wanted to expand on your thoughts:

    1) “I’m not much into auto jacks or fire extinguishers, but I keep both in the car.” Neither am I, but they are both @ home/car. Not being into them – they are still tools that are handy in an emergency.

    2) “There are a lot more scenarios than “doomsday” where a gun could be handy.” – agreed, such as a home robbery or the like – so you win there.

    3) As for claymore’s, it is pretty simple to get the angle correct, the blasting face is curved inwards, point & plant it. As for shoulder fired IR seeking missiles, I was talking from a point of view of “The End of Days”, in which case you get those weapons however you can – certainly much more difficult than a hand gun, but about 5000% more effective for short range power projection – yes?

    Also, the military trains w/ an array of weapons. In my experience, hand guns was the LEAST of all training that I ever received.

    4) “Just wondering how one puts a finger down the muzzle of a .223 barrel.” Answer: I was not talking about putting a finger DOWN the barrel of an M-16, I was talking about putting your fingers into the slots of the barrel holder (a plastic wrap-around about the barrel that had cooling holes in the bottom – was made by Mattel Toy Co. (of all things!!)). If you threw the M-16 into semi-auto mode and then stuck your fingers into the holes of the barrel holder and made contact w/ the barrel, the heat would burn your fingers down to the knuckle – VERY dangerous! The cadets at the academy warned us NOT to do this since a previous cadet in `74 did just that and lost his hand – burned all the way past his first knuckle down to his hand – very ugly.

    5) “Knifes are fine for close quarters combat – unless the combatant already has you in his or her gun sights. A bowie looks good but certainly isn’t the optimum fighting knife.” OK, dude, ya got me there. Close quarters w/ a baseball bat against a hand gun is a No-op. So there, you are quite right. I spoke w/o thinking it thru better. However, in close quarters, I would want a hand gun over a rifle 28 days out of the week (maneuverablity from the wrist). And I disagree w/ you on the 12″ Bowie. Here, I think it is a matter of style & choice. A Bowie, alinged along the back side of your forearm is deadly – pure & simple – if you know what to do w/ it. Every fist you throw has a very disagreeable back side to it. And the strike works only from the elbow (very short, unlike an arm swing). As well, aligned along the back side of the forearm, it provides a very useful block. Ya know? I was actually going to say, that I really wanted a light saber over a baseball bat?, but now that I think about it, I still want the baseball bat for close quarters combat – it is my choice – no wrong or right in it – just my choice. I did so much better w/ a pugil stick when I had it in my right hand – and a baseball bat is so much more effective.

    6) I don’t think I understood fully your last paragraph – not disagreeing, just didn’t quite get it.

    Peace man.

  6. Kevin Wilmeth says:

    January 20th, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    “Anti-rights” is certainly true enough, but sad to say, there are lots of flavors within that term, and there are times to recognize a flavor even as you tie it back to the real root of the problem.

    The one I find myself using these days for “gun control” is “victim disarmament”; that term strikes me as literally accurate whether you’re talking about personal self-defense, or about the defense of liberty in a larger sense. I believe I first heard about it from David Codrea, who specializes in the topic.

    Best of all, at least in my experience, the term tends to produce automatic conniption fits in all the right people. The words literally imply the “monopoly of force” conversation that the control freaks so desperately do not wish to acknowledge.

Leave a Reply