Follow by Email


Friday, July 31, 2015

Why we need more gun control now; there's no need for guns in society. Demand an end to gun violence!

Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" & “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part 3 & beyond will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm like many other people do, religion is irrelevant to the discussion, & I do NOT believe that entertainment media causes violence. I am NOT calling for an immediate overthrow of the government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”. Also, PLEASE make comments. If you agree with this article, PLEASE share it to every single gun control advocate you know.
Part 1: A lot of people agree that we all have inalienable rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear, practice religion (as long as others are not affected negatively) (&, at least to some of you, maybe even be helped or taken care of when necessary) & so on & so forth. But there's a right we often forget; the right to the defense of self & others, & thus, the right to keep & bear arms & armor. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens to those rights when a group of armed men start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing &/or kidnapping those who disagree with them?

This exact scenario unfolded over & over again throughout history. It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance?
You may believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed men that I described often IS the government.
It was the governments of the world which were responsible for the genocides, ethnic cleansings, & mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political & religious dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps & secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to be the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused. 
According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, in the 20th century alone, bad governments have killed an estimated 262 MILLION civilians. That is, shockingly, 6 times more than soldiers, in ALL pre 21st century wars, COMBINED. So they killed more mostly unarmed or lightly armed civilians in 100 years than military personnel in tens of thousands. Government may be a good thing for a large, technologically advanced society. But everything they give can be taken back. Thus, this is why I believe we need at least some form of hard "tyranny insurance" that could be used if all else fails.

When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military & law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption, but in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, & always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for the icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such an individual possibly ask for?
Some people try to sidestep this issue by wanting things such as a stronger United Nations: essentially, a global government to keep the rest of the world in line. But this underscores a deep misconception. That will also attract tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. Again, for icing on the cake, they also get a paycheck! Do I really have to repeat that?

There's quite a few examples today that the U.N. & modern communications is not enough. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the genocide going in Darfur & the violence in Gaza right now. The drone attacks Pakistan & other parts of the middle east being part of the fuel for terrorism.
Look at the very government the United States is living under right now, which is already brought out by corporations, foreign lobbies & international banks: the "Patriot" act, giving law enforcement the ability to search a home or business without the owner's consent or knowledge & access to business, library & financial records. National Defense Authorization act gives the military the ability to arrest, kill &/or hold literally ANYONE with NO trial & COMPLETE IMPUNITY. The CIA has conducted mind control experiments, where the CIA has conducted what it exactly sounds like. The Guatemala syphilis experiment & Tuskegee syphilis experiments, which you can do research on yourself, where in the former, people often took part involuntarily, & in the latter, people were lied to. Oakville, Washington clear blobs, a probable government experiment. The Department of Homeland Security was buying about 1.6 billion buckshot shells & hollow point bullets, which are too expensive for training, but good for fighting, & the latter is restricted for use in war, but perfectly legal for use on civilians, & besides, the DHS only works domestically. In the past, the U.S. government has, at best, negligently, & at worst, intentionally killed its own civilians, like in the Ruby Ridge & Waco sieges, & has knowingly killed civilians, like in the drone strikes going on for years. Nothing is a conspiracy.
Tell me what the United Nations is doing about all of this. Show me where in school's history books is this highlighted in. TELL MEE!!! Now how much trust do you have in them now to do anything real? NO! Lookup an article called "The United Nations Exposed: Who Is In Control?" to see who's really in control of the UN. Again, hardly an unbacked conspiracy.

There are historically & factually accurate examples of letting the fox guard the henhouse (or having politicians being told to not mistreat their people & have no one other than themselves or people who are controlled by them enforce the rules). We should NOT solely rely on laws & the legal system: you can read up on how, on paper, people living in places such as the Soviet Union & communist China might've had rights on paper, but not in practice. This is what I mean by letting the fox guard the henhouse: how are we sure that they're not going to break the rules? And how are we sure that if they do break the rules, they get a sufficient consequence?

Once the types of individuals described get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power & rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protecting ourselves & each other. However, the right to defense is meaningless without the MEANS of defense; this is when the right to keep & bear arms & armor comes in. This is why I believe the right to defense of self & others, & to access arms & armor is a core right of all animals (even non-hostile extraterrestrials), including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color &/or other characteristics.

Part 2: people who are rational, sober minded & follow a code of ethics & morals neither seek out nor create violence & de-escalate it at every chance. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but are willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self & others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers & military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers & military personnel are just citizens granted permission & extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner). Private security should protect private property & cover when law enforcement is unavailable. Fugitive recovery/bail enforcement & surety agents/bounty hunters should hunt down criminals at least in certain circumstances.
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people & intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary & be controversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers & military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, & can still go bad, just as any other person can.

To round part two up, & science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, many plants & animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters & triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, & could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects.
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles & Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will. Nature's equivalent to today's bullet resistant vests.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of an inalienable right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, & thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
For example, let's say that the controllers of Place X wish to implement rules to restrict people from possessing functional weapons. To do this, they must must hire an enforcement arm (military, law enforcement, etc), WITH WEAPONS, to control others from having weapons. Someone must be armed: is is extremely unlikely to virtually impossible that everyone will be unarmed.

Part 3: so you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliche, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. Guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for what he believed to be the "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies, & so on & so forth. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing. Not to mention how easily votes can be rigged & how easy it is for politicians to lie their way through anyway.

Part 4: Some make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, & often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t think deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, & Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal & resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, & succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor & anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories & military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles & artillery are often meant for SUPPORT & will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work. Besides, the target isn't really the armed forces or law enforcement, but the politicians who caused the wreck in the first place.

I’ll wrap this part up with some quotes. Most from good people, others (Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler) being some of the most evil people short of their bosses (like some big international bankers, not that I intend to end all international banking). And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell. Source: Source: Orwell: The Authorized Biography, by Michael Shelden.

"Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." 

"I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." 
"Non Violence is okay as long as it works." 
"If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” - Thomas Paine.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

"What I fear most is power with impunity. I fear abuse of power, and the power to abuse." - Isabel Allende.

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong.

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

"Calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option... You can beg for mercy or you can fight back. Consider taking a safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there." - David Clarke.

You can verify all of these with Brainyquote & Goodreads.

Part 5:

Concerning the types of weapons used in violent crime & overall numbers: despite what the entertainment industry would have you believe, in 2013, rifles accounted for LESS than 290 deaths, according to the FBI's "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8". According to the same article, that year, shotguns were used to kill LESS than 310. Added up, long guns killed only 593 people that year. This is EVERYTHING that counts as a rifle (from low powered plinking rifles & single shots to high powered hunting rifles & semi-automatic "military style" rifles) or shotgun (from single shot .410 to semi-automatic 12-gauge) in statistics, so the deaths involving "assault weapons" are almost guaranteed to be even lower. Also, many want to restrict those while not mentioning cutting instruments & blunt objects, which account for 1,940 & 428 deaths respectively (then again, they're work tools). Altogether, firearm-related homicides accounted for a GRAND TOTAL of 8,454 people that year. Divide that by 290,000,000 & about 0.00002915172% of the population was, in homicide, killed with a firearm that year.

Also, many people tout the meme "more guns, more deaths". But how true is this? As seen in Wikipedia's "Gun politics in the Czech Republic" & in's information piece of the Czech republic, the latter of which has some of the lightest weapon laws in Europe (even compared to Switzerland), while the amount of guns went up over the last couple of decades & number of licenced gun owners peaking in 2001 & not changing much since then, crime went down. A similar case is also seen in Canada, in which, according to, in Canada, while the amount of licenced gun owners went up, homicide rates went the other way. Interestingly enough, while most rifles & shotguns are regulated less heavily than handguns in Canada, handguns are still more commonly used.

If more guns equals more deaths, then why is the U.S. #1 in guns per capita yet is actually does NOT even make it into the top 115 countries for homicide rate. Violence also varies. For example, Detroit, Michigan has a rather lengthy process to legally obtain functioning firearms (according to an article called "Gun Control Facts: Detroit Crime Rate is the Result Of Gun Control") & has a homicide rate so high that it would surpass El Salvador. However, there are places such as Chandler, Arizona that have light weapon laws & a low homicide rate.

Now, do you wish to keep our communities safe from crime & violence? Then we must address other issues, such as culture, economics, availability of services, education, substance (ie drug & alcohol) use, presence of chemicals, law enforcement effectiveness & even what counts as a certain crime & data manipulation just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violent, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) & Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade weapons & ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. 

I’ll also mention Northern Ireland. While sure, the U.S.A. has gang violence, social authoritarians & religious rivalries, the U.S.A. virtually never has armed religious warfare.
But in Northern Ireland, despite a smaller population to cause trouble & less landmass to hide in, there has been open ARMED religious conflict between Catholics & Protestants, with tension lasting to this day, & virtually every law enforcement agent is armed with firearms, unlike the most of the U.K. which has dedicated Authorized Firearms Officers & Advanced Firearms Officers (the latter of which are the equivalent of SWAT).

I would attribute the root of Northern Ireland’s violence being their culture, which affects politics. Unlike the U.S., which is founded on religious liberty & relatively heavy individualism, Northern Ireland’s conflict between Catholics & Protestants dates back centuries, & it seems like that there are a number of people who won’t let go of hard feelings, & worse, believe that it’s okay to hurt others for being too different.

As for violence in the U.S.A., much of it stems from the War on Drugs, in which gangs fight for control of territory & drug supplies, & the police state prioritizes fighting the Drug war over fighting real crime, especially with private-prison lobbying & criminalizing victim-less crimes. 

Other sources of violence the heavy taxation, lack of economic freedom & overall corruption in some cities, which makes it hard to make an honest living, the government Prussian-style schooling system teaching & conditioning in obedience instead of critical thinking or life skills, single parent households, overindulgence on welfare (as explained in Ryan Dawson;s video “Looting why some places and not others answers”), & either the failure to properly discipline children or the abuse or neglect of them.

If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), & make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly transfer weapons to violent felons. I'd only allow registration if an extremely high percentage (like 98+%) own suitable weapons. Though in the U.S., it's already illegal for felons to own functional firearms (except for antiques, airguns & crossbows, which are less regulated), I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide). Along with this, I would take action against other causes of violence, such as the unnecessary use of physic drugs, which you can do research on how they can cause people to become violent. Finally, I would arm every law abiding able bodied person possible, which should prevent or at least cut down on the chances of power slipping into the wrong hands by distributing it.
While I would like to improve the mental health system, I would not block someone from the right, let alone the duty, the keep & bear arms (& definitely not armor) for being "mentally ill", for reasons explained in a video called "The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns", unless, they are obviously violent (though criminal background checks should already cover it & if someone wants an exception from the duty for reasons such as not trusting themself, being too mentally/psychologically damaged to use a weapon, etc). Part of this is that most people with mental illnesses do not do anything violent, nor are most violent people mentally ill, along with how tests can diagnose many people as "violent" or "mentally ill" on paper, but not in practice. Not to mention how people could get into the fear of being "blacklisted", then possibly stigmatized from merely being diagnosed with a symptom that would not provide a legitimate reason for putting them on such a list.

Do you want to support self defense and the right to keep and bear arms? Other than contacting politicians, visiting right to keep & bear arms rallies, liking or following social media pages dedicated to this and so on, there are many groups you can support. 
Non United States of America based;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Regional U.S.A. based;,,,,,,,,,,

The author allows this article to be shared and used freely, as long as the original author is credited and no content is changed without permission. Translations are more than welcome.


  1. Over all a very good argument or article. My position is that the 2nd amendment is not the avenue for gun ownership.
    There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was.
    If I ignored the 2nd paragraph as some state is because there is no 2nd paragraph. The 2nd amendment is only one sentence. A sentence by and large only has one meaning and starts out a well regulated militia which defines what the sentence is all about. The people in the militia have a right to possess arms in a well regulated militia. After the president’s impassioned call for gun control in his State of the Union, Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul offered a rebuttal. “We will not let the liberals tread on the Second Amendment,” he insisted, repeating what’s become the GOP’s mantra: Obama’s gun proposals infringe the Constitution. This refrain is profoundly misleading—none of Obama’s proposals is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It should nonetheless serve as a reminder that gun-control advocates mistakenly continue to cede the constitutional arguments to the extremists.
    It’s time to take back the Second Amendment.
    This is hardly a new observation—it’s been made many times before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating because politicians like Senator Paul seem unwilling or unable to process its essential truth.
    For the past 30 years, the Second Amendment has been defined by the most radical elements of the gun-rights movement. They argue not only that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns—a view that represents, in my view, the best understanding of our history and tradition—but, more importantly, that nearly any restriction on the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms infringes this sacred right.
    This radical vision of the Second Amendment is remarkable mainly for having so little basis in Supreme Court case law, the text of the Constitution, and American history.

    1. The part about the militia and the people are 2 SEPERATE parts. The comma was probably there for a reason just like the 'shall not be infringed' part. Even at that, the 'well regulated' part back then might've meant well trained and equipped (plus, it's disputed anyway).

      A quote from George Mason, credit of Wikiquote: " A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.

      I'd also like to throw in the "Latter of marque" (, which authorized private ships to carry artillery (ie cannons).

      By the way, sorry for the slow response; I keep forgetting to reply here. Oh well. =P

  2. Making illegal and illegitimate people to have thee type of dangerous weapons can let the lives of others in danger. You can take help from the MA Gun License to know about the rules and regulations regarding these firearms as they are simply meant for safety and self defense not for harming others.


Comments are more than welcome on this blog! Please feel free to share your 2sense below.

ANYONE can post a comment here! There is not even word verification to hassle with, either!

By the way, if you know or have an idea as to why people rarely comment on this blog, please let me know!

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge