Arm All or Arm None

What would the powers that be think of that choice?

Let's play let's pretend. Let's pretend that Kathy, an innocent citizen, and Frank, a cop, are forced to deal with the same criminal, Xavier.

Now Xavier one night catches Kathy on the way to her car in a parking lot, beats the stew out of her, and rapes her. Now the gun-control crowd absolutely insists that Kathy does not need a handgun in order to deal with Xavier. So an unarmed Kathy becomes a victim of Xavier.

Now Frank, the cop, tracks down Xavier and puts his worthless carcass into jail. What's the difference?

Frank was armed with a handgun when he had to deal with Xavier.

Now you tell me what warped, sick logic says that the victim of a criminal should not have a handgun while the policeman who arrests the very same criminal should have a handgun. If, as the gun-control crowd purports, Kathy doesn't need a handgun in her encounter with the criminal, why does the policeman?

After all, Frank, the cop, is bigger than Kathy. Why does he need a weapon?

How can people who live in gated communities with armed guards argue that we common folk must be disarmed?

I say, take down your gates and fire your armed guards. I say to politicians, get rid of your bodyguards. I say to Congress, tell the Capitol police to go write traffic tickets; you no longer need their arms to protect you. I say to the president, get rid of the Secret Service or at least take its guns away. Disarm every one of the 60,000+ federal officials authorized to carry handguns.

It seems to me that either we all disarm or we all arm. It seems to me that it is unacceptably illogical to argue that crime victims must be unarmed while the police, dealing with the very same criminals, should be armed. This business of the elitists, living behind the protection of pistols, and MACHINE GUNS or better yet, take a look at the video below! Telling common folk you must not have firearms smacks of totalitarianism. Don’t kid yourself. That’s WHY they want us disarmed. So they can do things that we would shoot them for.

It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that every American be armed. That's why the ancient Anglo-Saxon right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. And the amendment states "right of the people" not right of the states or right of the militias. All honest scholars agree that in every instance the Bill of Rights uses the word "people," it is referring to individual rights.

As Naomi Wolf figured out…

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” [https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992]

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I know that millions of Americans today suffer from urban psychosis, in which their world view is distorted by dishonest, lying, control freak politicians and even more dishonest news media and their miserable environment of stone, concrete and asphalt. But the facts are simple. A handgun is a tool, just like a saw or a hammer. It is an ideal tool for self-defense.

With a handgun, 90-pound Kathy can stop 230-pound Xavier from raping or assaulting her. After Samuel Colt invented his revolver, a common saying in America was, "God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

And so he did.

You don't have to be built like a linebacker or invest five years of sweat in becoming an mixed martial artist. You can defend yourself quite well with a handgun with just a little bit of practice and common sense. It is, in fact, an ideal tool for women and for the elderly.

Gun-control has always been an elitist method of controlling the common folk. It always has been racist. New York City's first gun-control laws were aimed at those immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe whom the hoity-toity types viewed as vermin. In the South, gun-control laws most often applied only to blacks.

Nevertheless, if the urban insane wish to be prey for predators, that's their privilege. But no one has the right to tell someone else that he or she cannot possess the tools necessary to defend his or her life and the lives of loved ones. And that includes ANY terrible weapon of war for self defense. No victim, no crime. The only crimes being committed in many cases is those in government violating their oaths of office and murdering innocent civilians as in the Bryan Malinowski case.

What do you think? Should we all disarm, and of course the criminals will rush right down to do so, or all arm up and be our own first responders?

---