Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

People call me an absolutist; they say I refuse to see both sides of an issue. But that isn’t the case. I’m actually a very moderate and pragmatic guy. Here, I’ll show you:

Take the issue of gun violence, for instance. In light of all of these recent tragic shootings, the debate over how to deal with gun toting bad guys has intensified. One side says we need more gun control, the other side says we need less. Me, I see the merits on both ends of the spectrum. In fact, BOTH strategies could work.

We could realistically stop violence by imposing more gun control, IF we can figure out a way to eradicate all guns everywhere from everyone, and get rid of all other forms of weaponry, and abolish the malice in the hearts of men, and effectively outlaw hate, anger, greed and mental disorders, and require all people to be peaceful, kind and trustworthy. We merely have to establish a Disney fairy tale Utopia on Earth and all of a sudden the gun control argument becomes really quite cogent.

But some might raise a couple of objections to this proposal: 1) It sounds expensive. 2) As a secondary issue, it’s also completely insane.

If the naysayers are correct, then that leaves us with the other alternative. We can try to curtail gun violence by permitting and encouraging radical concepts like “self defense.” We can stop requiring folks to be helpless victims. We can give the potential prey a choice other than hiding under the desk and, as a last resort, defending themselves with a manila folder and a pencil. We can end the reckless, dangerous, and — I’m beginning to see it this way more and more every day — morally corrupt practice of pretending that we would somehow be in greater danger if we had the ability to fire back, rather than cower in a corner. I wonder if the maniacs who make this claim would also jump out of an airplane without a parachute because parachutes malfunction sometimes. “I might use this and still get myself killed, so I’ll just not use it and definitely get myself killed.”

See? I’ve considered both ideas and then come down on the only side that even attempts to make a modicum of sense.

Monday’s shooting at the Naval Yard in DC has coaxed the gun controllers to the surface like worms after a rainstorm. They’ve already begun their usual tactic of reporting false information until it sets into the public conscience, regardless of reality. That’s why Pierce Morgan went on an AR15 rant last night, despite the apparently irrelevant fact that an AR15 wasn’t used in the massacre. The killer carried out his evil deed with two pistols and a shotgun.

But these are left wing Statists we’re dealing with; they’ve never allowed “truth” and “what actually happened” to stand in the way of their poisonous political ideology. So they’ve attempted to snatch up this incident for their gun control arsenal, even though DC has strict gun control laws, and military installations have even stricter gun control laws. This shooting happened inside a gun free zone, which was inside another gun free zone, which was protected by walls, fences, check points, security guards, locks, regulations, background checks, and policies. It was gun control layered on top of gun control, covered in barbed wire and encased in cement. Yet twelve people are still dead.

I love this country, I really do. But we’ve got a brand of stupid in this nation that I doubt you’d find anywhere else on Earth, let alone the galaxy. Requiring military members to be disarmed on military bases and in military installations? Two mass murders in the span of a few years, and yet this policy remains? Back in the Roman days, soldiers were required to be armed at all times, under penalty of death. Yet here we confiscate their personal firearms and tell them to keep their military issued weapons locked away, which leads DIRECTLY to these sorts of situations. What the hell is wrong with us? The first responders got there in seven minutes, which is an incredible response time. But there should have been return fire immediately. We trust these people to fight wars, operate battleships, fly jets, drop bombs, use drones, go on Special Forces missions, but we don’t think they’re competent or psychologically stable enough to carry a weapon to work without accidentally shooting each other?

Let me ask you: Would you board a commercial airplane if you found out the pilot has been legally barred from driving a Segway? This is your captain speaking, I’m not trusted to operate a motorized scooter at 4 miles an hour across the sidewalk, but I’ll be flying this 250 passenger aircraft 30 thousand feet in the air for the next 2600 miles. Enjoy the flight.

In my innocence and naivety, prior to the Fort Hood rampage, I sort of assumed that the military members on a military base would be perpetually locked and loaded every day, because, you know, it’s a military base. It’s a target. It’s a place where everyone ought to be prepared for the worst, because that’s why it exists. It’s a military base. These are trained and disciplined men and women. These people are in the military. Their weapons are tools of their trade.

Back when I didn’t know any better, I had a certain foolish confidence that, say, a trained Marine Corps sniper, who assassinates high valued targets from a distance of 800 meters for a living, might be allowed to keep a holstered firearm on his person if he entered an American military installation in his civilian clothes. But not so much. A military base in the United States should be the last place on the planet where anyone could hope to successfully carry out a mass killing. But here we are. Again. The feds tell us we are in a permanent state of war, so why is our military in a permanent state of disarmament?

Speaking of war and terrorism, the horrendous stupidity of this policy has been colored in a tinge of morbid irony, now that President Obama has officially waived the provision designed to prohibit the supply of arms to terrorist groups. As innocent people die defenseless in American forts and bases, we are handing guns and grenades to Al Qaeda affiliates overseas. THEY can be trusted, but not our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines. As we listen to the tedious and predictable demands for the NRA to apologize for the shooting (which is a bit like asking PETA to apologize for a bear attack), I’d like to see some of these gun control advocates turn their attention to the high powered weaponry we are currently in the process of dispensing into the hands of murderers and militants in the Middle East.

If all of this makes sense to you, if you still can’t fathom the logistical and logical shortcomings of the gun control, “gun free zone,” argument, allow me to issue the following challenge: Put your money where your mouth is, anti-gun guy. Stop asking other people to die for the sake of your gun phobia, and put your ideology into practice. Go home right now and make a sign that says: “Gun Free Zone. No guns on premises.” Then put that sign on your front lawn. I’ll move in next door and make a different sign: “Gun Zone. Trespassers shot on sight.” Then I’ll nail it to my front door. Next, we wait to see who gets burglarized first. Hell, I’ll keep my door unlocked; meanwhile you can buy 40 deadbolts and put bars on the window. I still like my chances.

How confident are you?

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Send this to a friend