Dear Friends,
It seems to me, those who call for gun control, have very different intentions than they claim. They understand that the very word, gun, has emotional meaning to most people. Guns have been glamorized in movies, demonized in the unbiased media and they have been used by the most violent regimes in human history, to visit the worst atrocities on mankind yet. Guns emotional impact is the theme that rhetoricians use, to get us to fall for their sophistry. The fact that guns are legalized in the US Constitution, is a matter of great concern to those who wish to overturn that Constitution, for a new paradigm of government… arbitrary rule. That guns must be eliminated from our society, as a precondition of their utopian world view, and that they use spurious arguments based on emotion… should be a matter of great concern to all of us.
Guns are simply tools. They are used for hunting wildlife, for target shooting, as a means of self defense, in military combat, and they are used to commit crimes. This tool, we call a gun, is a very useful tool in the hands of righteous people, and a tool of villainy in the hands of sociopaths. This last use is the one the banners of guns use, as an emotional wedge, to pry guns from the hands of the just.
The people who wish to disarm the general public, use the rhetorical tool of taking an isolated incident, and acting as if it were a regular occurrence. The Columbine shooting for instance. Whenever we have a terrible act of violence, by a sociopath against innocent people, the call goes out to ban this or that gun, or gun accessory. The fear mongers claim that if only guns were harder to get this wouldn’t happen. Yet when Australia banned guns… gun violence went up drastically.
The real question is not, why did this happen, but, why doesn’t this happen more often? If, as they claim, the accessibility of guns makes people go shoot up random strangers, and given the ubiquitous availability of guns in the US, then why don’t shootings like Aurora Colorado happen every day? If their logic were true… we should be reading about a random act of violence several times a day. The fact that this isn’t so should give us pause as to the veracity of their claim.
In fact, there is empirical evidence that where guns are the most controlled there is the most gun violence. This seemingly counter intuitive situation points to a fact of human nature. Those who commit violent acts, are more often than not, cowards. They only use violence when they have a monopoly on it. They will not use violence when there is a very real possibility of being harmed in the process. But, where guns are banned… the criminal’s monopoly on violence is assured. That is why shooters like James Holmes wore a bullet proof vest. Because he is a sociopathic coward; a poltroon of the highest order.
Those that seek to disarm the honest, claim that the Right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous right, and as such, it should be limited. But that is a very slippery slope to leap onto. If we accept the premise that if a Right is dangerous, it should be limited, then what about the right to free speech? Historically the Right to free speech is far more dangerous than the Right to own firearms.
Two examples should suffice to make the point. The first is the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx and Fredrick Engels. This one small pamphlet has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people since it was written. The second example is Hitler’s Mein Kampf. This autobiography led to the Second World War and sixty million people dead. It is plain to anyone with open eyes, that the Right to free speech is far more dangerous, then the Right to keep and bear arms. To ban the one leads naturally to banning the other.
The banning of firearms in Germany under Adolph Hitler was instrumental in the murdering of six million Jews by Zyklon B in the death camps. The Nazis could not have murdered people on an industrial scale if those people were armed. Cowards only pick on people unable to defend themselves. Stalin also disarmed his people before he imposed political famine. Stalin’s famines starved to death millions of people in the former USSR. The Ukraine was the hardest hit, but famine was a favorite tool of Stalin, and his brothers in communism, to turn people away from God… and to arbitrary rule.
As we have shown, the arguments against the ownership of guns… are universally spurious. To knowingly make a specious argument, that will inevitably lead to the exact opposite result that you claim to want, is a purely malicious attempt to subvert the Rights of Man. That some people do this shows their motives are anything but sincere. We must ask ourselves, If they knowingly lie to us in this big thing… can we trust them in anything? The answer is absolutely no!
Sincerely,
John Pepin
