Let's Have That Conversation About Guns.doc

7/29/2019 Let's Have That Conversation About Guns.doc

1/3

Let's Have That Conversation About GunsFebruary 12th 2013By Kurt Schlichter

For once I agree with liberals. It's high time to have a conversation about guns. Let's start withthe problem that there are far too few guns on our streets.

Wait, we can't have that conversation. In fact, we're not supposed to have what people might

commonly describe as a "conversation" at all. We're supposed to shut-up and listen asliberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murderrampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothingwrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right toself-defense.

Because that is what the goal is a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There'salways another ''common sense" gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abidingcitizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions untilfinally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.

Well, almost no citizens. "Gun control" means all guns under the control of the governmentand available only to it and, of course, to politically connected cronies. Gun-grabbing poserMichael Bloomberg is going to be surrounded by enough fire power to remake the movie Heat.

He's always going to be protected. The purpose of gun control is to ensure that we aren't.So let's have that conversation, and let's lay the cards on the table. Modern firearms (whichreally aren't that modern) are highly effective weapons in the hands of an evil little freak thatgets off shooting children. They are also highly effective weapons in my hands whendefending my children from evil little freaks.

Liberals ask why I need these weapons. The answer is simple. I'm going to be as well-armedor better armed than the threat. Period.

Here's the fact bad people are going to have guns. And if you've ever smoked a joint, you aredisqualified from arguing that prohibition works.

So, while we are talking, let's talk about what we lawyers call "causation." Since apparently weneed a whole batch of new laws, perhaps we ought to see what laws might have preventedthis crime. Well, we outlawed murder, but that didn't seem to help. We outlawed stealing, butthat creep stole the guns from his mother. He transported them, took them to a school, loadedthem all criminal violations, as was merely possessing the pistols at his age.

Well, maybe he would have been stopped by new laws. Maybe we could ban 30 roundmagazines? Well, when one walks into a class of children it is unlikely that a couple moremagazine changes a relatively unskilled user can do it in three seconds would make muchdifference.

Maybe we could have better background checks. Wait, the creep stole the guns from someonewho would have passed any background check. No causation there.

1


2/3

Well, then maybe the only real answer is to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is prettymuch every defensive weapon outside of shotguns and revolvers. It's also contrary to theSecond Amendment and the constitutions of at least 40 states.

We should talk about the Constitution. Liberals have an amazing gift for finding things in itthat have eluded everyone else. They have divined a right to abortion that the Foundersapparently intended to enshrine within it, however subtly. However, they cannot seem to findwhere it holds that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Perhaps it is obscured by a penumbra.

Regardless, our conversation needs to address the tens of millions of Americans who bitterlycling to this right. Perhaps it should focus on just how the liberals propose to conduct thisdisarmament. They should probably start with who they assume would conduct this task. Ihighly suspect the advocates of turning government force upon its own citizens to deprivethem of what they consider a fundamental right do not envision themselves strapping on bodyarmor and locking and loading to go kick down the doors of people known to have guns.

So, since risking enormous violence as a consequence to turning government force onmillions of armed American citizens who would believe their fundamental rights were beingtyrannically breached is probably a non-starter, we should converse about reality. Liberalslove reality, or so they are always saying.

The reality is that guns aren't going anywhere. There are 300 million of them. We aren't givingthem up. So let's deal with the world as it is.

First, let's talk about some common ground. It was not news to anyone that the creep inNewtown had mental problems. I am not discounting his evil, but the fact is he clearly hadmental issues.Can we agree that we need to look carefully at whether society can do a better

job dealing with people like this before they crack up?Doesn't it make sense to deal withpeople who might be a threat instead of depriving millions ofinnocent, law-abiding Americansof their rights?

Let's return to the fact that we have nowhere near enough guns on the streets. In many states,concealed carry laws have been changed to allow citizens the ability to defend themselvesnearly everywhere. The bloodbathliberals expected never materialized. Instead, crime fell. Itturns out that ordinary American citizens don't turn into to sociopaths in the presence of aGlock 19.

Let's talk about how all American citizens should share this right, because many don't. InCalifornia, I need my local sheriff to sign off that I'm competent. I served 25 years in themilitary with two tours in hostile fire zones. I carried weapons in uniform deployed to fires,earthquakes and riots. I oversaw the weapons training of thousands of soldiers. Thegovernment even spent tens of thousands investigating me, and then gave me a security

clearance.

California considers me unfit to carry a gun outside my home. This is ridiculous. Since we areconversing about guns, let me share some gun insights since liberals often don't knowanything about them (Memo to the Media: Please learn what an "automatic" weapon is andisn't. Please.) First, I don't like carrying guns. I've spent several years of my life carrying gunsand I don't enjoy it. They are heavy and dirty and you are always aware you have it and youmust behave accordingly.Guns are a pain. I would only carry one because the pain ofwatching people butchered while I looked on helplessly is immeasurably worse.

2


3/3

Let's also talk about this assumption that a citizen with a handgun out in public is no matchfor a creep in a vest with a long weapon. True, I'd rather have a long weapon myself, but I'mpretty sure that as I try to make a head shot his full attention (and his gun fire) are all going tobe focused on me instead of on some kid. I doubt anyone with a concealed carry permit wantsto get shot, but while it may not be in tune with the tenor of these selfish times, I'd prefer thatif someone had to get shot it be me facing the enemy instead of a civilian shot in the back.

Let's talk about "gun free zones" too. Liberals love talking about "science" and "logic," yettheir magical thinking when it comes to guns is staggering. Let's call "gun free zones" whatthey are killing zones.

You don't see mass shootings at gun shows, police stations or NRA conventions. Bad peoplego where they know there are defenseless victims. "Gun free" means that the innocents aredefense free. A soldier in a sister unit to mine years ago was killed at Ft. Hood, where personalweapons are banned and military ones are in safes. He was shot while trying to attack thetraitor with a chair.

Let's talk about allowing some personnel at schools to be armed and simply dismissing theidea with the declaration that it its "absurd" is insufficient. Israel arms some teachers so let'slook at their example. There are bad people out there. You can't wish them away.

And let me end this brief conversation with a question: Is there anyone who

doesn't wish someone else at Sandy Hook had a gun?

3

Documents

Let's Have That Conversation About Guns.doc