House of Eratosthenes

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods. And CNN reported yesterday that black-on-black murder of young black men is up 40 percent from last year. The harder the times get, the higher these statistics will go.

Do people really not recognize the danger involved in this mindset, that when times get tough we should expect people to kill each other because it’s only natural, like perspiring on a hot day?

Hat tip to Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Thing I Know #252. If there are some rich people who steal, and there are some poor people who don’t, then you can’t justify or explain crime with a bad economy.

Wow, The right to bear arms is killing all of us huh? I own about 15 and haven’t had worse than a head cold.
- Tom The Impaler | 12/31/2008 @ 12:05
[…] Tips: MK Freeberg and […]
- Cassy Fiano » Detroit columnist thinks he knows better than the Founding Fathers | 12/31/2008 @ 13:14
I liked Libby Spencer’s response a whole helluva lot better (same link, a couple of posts above the Good Reverend). In part:

Nonetheless, the point is, most people who are for gun bans don’t have experience with hunters or recreational gun owners. Their only knowledge comes from the real dangers of inner city use in the commission of crimes. When you respond to the slightest whiff of disagreement with hateful pile-ons such as we’re seeing in the comment section now, you not only make supporters of your rights like me want to rethink my position but also solidiy sicthe fears of those who would ban guns altogether.

What she said.
- Buck | 12/31/2008 @ 14:06
Wow, I dunno. I’m finding it a little tough to condemn that tirade against Mr. Zumbo.

Sure, it did (temporarily) cost him his job, and I do consider that to be an outrage. But his comments were irresponsible, and when the dust all settled, he got his job back, plus he learned a whole lot about his mistake and entered some much more sensible stuff into the Congressional Record that otherwise wouldn’t have been entered there.

Why lay his temporary outplacement at the feet of the gun-rights advocates? The editors and sponsors were the ones who made the decision to sack him, and I doubt they would have done this had his critics been more reckless, frothy and impetuous in their remarks, than he was in his. Be that the case or not, they were the ones suppressing his speech, not those who criticized him. And with all these overly-agendized populists running around, spewing their bile about abortion rights, women-bein’-equal-to-men, Israel, Palestine, gay marriage, et al — why are we burdening just the gun-rights’ advocates with this burden of keeping things unsaid, if those things happen to not be sugary? Because…their chosen passion happens to be associated with implements that can be wielded with deadly force?

I’m having a tough time clambering on board that bandwagon. The Second Amendment and the First Amendment have a mutually-beneficial, symbiotic relationship with each other. The Second supports the First. In incidents resembling the one to which Ms. Spencer refers, the First supports the Second. Thanks to Mr. Nugent’s intervention, the Zumbo episode, unfortunate as it was, culminated in an outcome perfectly compatible with the way the overall system is supposed to work.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2008 @ 16:30
The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

Horseshit. Heard of the War of 1812? Oh, my bad, they don’t teach history in school anymore. I forgot.

The Brits decided to abrogate the treaty they signed recognizing the independence of the Colonies, and returned with a large naval force which sailed into the Gulf of Mexico. The plan was to land at New Orleans, push north, and link up with other British forces coming south from their possessions in Canada. The hope was to pinch off the United States at the Mississippi River, preventing it from expanding further westward. Perhaps from there, they had long-range plans of gaining control of all that extra territory that lay west of the river, that which eventually became states like Missouri, Kansas, Nevada, etc. Would have rendered the US essentially impotent for generations longer than it was, perhaps permanently.

Anyway, long story short, Andrew Jackson got wind of it, assembled a ragtag army down in New Orleans, dug in some defenses, and waited for the British to attack. When they did, Ol Hickory was ready for them, and gave em the thrashing of their lives. The troops that were supposed to come down from the north never arrived.

Anyway, pure unadulterated BS that Britain didn’t give a whit about what was going on over here after 1781. If nothing else, they and the French together controlled all of Canada well into the 20th century. It was for those reasons, among many others, that the Founding Fathers thought it important for the common people to have their own armaments – to act as a sort of backup National Guard if necessary…a last line of defense against foreign invasion.
- cylarz | 01/01/2009 @ 12:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Ban All GunsWednesday, December 31st, 2008

Ban All Guns
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008