Jenna wants to ban handguns and sneers "You lose, Gun Jockey!" My reply:
Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 6:09 am
Subject: Regarding your apparently serious proposal for another civil war. We accept, as long as you understand where this is going.
"Tyrants have no problem dealing with people who are willing to die for their principles. They will happily kill them to achieve their goals. Where they fail is with the people who are not only willing to die for their principles but are willing to kill tyrants in righteous self defense of those principles, and their property, liberty and lives." -- Mike Vanderboegh
My dear Ms. Karvunidis,
Having read your column, "Ohio school shooting: Time to ban handguns, guys," I have two questions:
First, how do you propose to do that without initiating a bloody second American civil war?
Second, how much is such a tyranny worth to you, personally?
The answer to the first question is that you can't. Oh, you may be extrapolating from your own social isolation, cultural ignorance and moral cowardice to believe that just because the big bad government, state or federal, tells you to do something at the point of a government gun that YOU would certainly do it -- so consequently we will. You may even be so poorly educated as to believe that "democracy" -- unfettered majority rule -- trumps constitutional republicanism just because your side wins a vote. Whatever the cause of your ill-thought proposal, the result would be a ghastly civil war, for if you wish to get my handguns -- or any firearms -- you will have to kill me to get them. In addition, you will have to kill my brother, you will have to kill my son and daughters, you will have to kill all my friends. And if just three percent of American gun owners feel the way I do, you will have to kill upwards of 3 million people. And, not to be ugly, but we will not go gently into your collectivist good night peaceably and will take as many freedom-stealing sonsabitches your proposal sends our way, and we intend to make that more than a one-to-one ratio. So, where are we at now, mathematically, with your proposal? Stacks of bodies in the tens of millions certainly. It seems an odd way to prevent school shootings and promote "public safety."
I had to laugh, as well, at your Borg-like characterization, also apparently from absolute ignorance, that "Resistance is Futile!":
Well guess what? Now the government has nukes, automatic weapons and sniper rifles. If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank. You lose, Gun Jockey! If you really want things to be fair, why don't you lobby for the right to a nuke. That will totally happen.
Please, Jenna, really, you don't know much about the military, do you? Nor military history, obviously. Who do you think makes up the military these days? The sons and daughters of gun control advocates? The draft is long gone, and you wouldn't find a "progressive's" son caught dead within a kilometer of a recruiting station. Why it is OUR children who still believe in the old verities enough to sacrifice themselves to protect this country. It is our children who, if your tyrannical order is given by your Man-Child God-King Barry Soetero, will be in the command posts, tactical operations centers and in the barracks of the tip-of-the-spear combat formations. All of them took an oath to defend the Constitution against "ALL enemies, foreign and domestic." It was not a personal "Fuhrer oath" to Barrack Hussein Obama. Which way, when your order is given, do you suppose they will point those sophisticated and powerful weapons in the event of civil war over firearms liberty -- something codified in that Constitution they swore to uphold?
And as for the efficacy of determined guerrillas versus a powerful, sophisticated military, the history of such conflicts across the centuries suggests that putting your money on the guerrillas is a safer bet. A tank is of limited utility against nimble guerrillas using Fourth Generation Warfare techniques targeted against the politicians who command them. A nuke? Come, Jenna, think it through. Of what use is a nuke when your proposal would require it to be used on your own soil, against your own people? The political blowback of the use of nukes on American soil, even among other ignoramuses who would support your proposal, would instead blow Barry right out of the White House and bring down the entire Federal Leviathan nanny-state tyranny. Of course, they don't even teach the important lessons of the American Revolution in public schools anymore (and I'm assuming you went to government schools, for no private school or home school product would be so abysmally ignorant of her own history) so perhaps it is not your fault. But now that I have explained to you the facts of life and liberty I'm sure you'll see the folly of your proposal.
Okay, how about Question Two?
How much is such a tyranny worth to you, personally?
In 1999, your previous man-child president Bill Clinton was upset at the Serbs. They were killing their ex-countrymen, the Muslim Kosovars and Bosnians, and wouldn't listen to reason. Exasperated, Clinton decided that the NATO bombing campaign would be expanded -- changing the rules of engagement by which our military operates -- to include the politicians who crafted the policies and (pay particular attention here, Jenna) the media and intellectuals who publicly supported the Serbian cause. To this end, Clinton ordered precision guided munitions sent in the middle of the night into the homes of such people, as well as the headquarters of Serbian radio and television.
It is, then, no small kindness I do you by pointing out that -- assuming you get your way -- if the previously law-abiding (but well-armed) folks whom your proposal makes criminals and guerrillas in their own country overnight decide to adopt Bill Clinton's Serbian Rules, you might want to relocate to Canada as a precaution.
Of course, all of this seems like calculated insanity to you, just as your proposal seems to us. Well, there are a lot of us who have been paying particular attention to the way the federal government really works ever since Waco in 1993. We don't live in your bubble. Waco taught us we couldn't afford to.
So, if you now concede that your proposal was unthinking, stupid and doomed to fail because of its unintended consequences and not worth the likely body count and agony to the country, I will consider this a letter well written and time well spent.
If on the other hand, you still deny inconvenient reality and stubbornly cling to your proposal, well, all I can say is, if you get your way and the government tries to enforce it, you'll find plenty of people who will take you up on it.
May God help us all.
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126