| This is why I don't usually argue from the Constitution, marvelous as it is. Legalistic arguments permit legalistic defeats. I've long ago given up trying to convince Sonart Et Al.
My argument is this: I am not hurting anyone. I have never harmed anyone by my ownership and use of firearms. Unless someone aggresses against me, I never will. Try to disarm me, and I will shoot you. Send someone else, and I will shoot him and -then- shoot you, if I can. If in the process someone manages to kill me, he's welcome to do so. I'll hardly mind, and any country along the lines Sonart Et Al propose is hardly a place I'd want to breathe the air of anyway. But any such incident will end very, -very- nastily. Bring friends. Bring bodybags. You'll need plenty of both.
And there are a -lot- of people like me out there. In Iraq, 20-40,000 insurgents have fought the U.S. & Co. to a virtual standstill for five years. The American Insurgency would number a minimum of 850,000 people (1% of all gunowners, a highly conservative estimate IMO).
Sonart, unless you are personally comfortable with killing or imprisoning a minimum of 850,000 people, piss off. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of center-punching anyone who comes through my door with the intent of disarming me. Unless you're willing to look me in the eyes and pull the trigger yourself, you're nothing but a puling coward who sends thugs with badges to do his dirty work and keep his hands clean. So either admit you're fine with killing an otherwise harmless man, or just drop it. My gun is on the table, so to speak. You hide yours behind "laws" and fancy language, but it's there all the same. At least I acknowledge mine and what it stands for and means: you expect us all to look the other way and refrain from noticing yours. No thanks; looking away makes it too easy for you. |