Idiot Gun Control Sign from March on D.C.

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I feel like singing "Back in the Saddle, Again."  Regular readers know what I mean.  My ride this week with stupifying pain issues still didn't make me as stupid as the kid with the sign in this picture.  The dope was one of the "March For Our Lives" thing a couple Saturdays ago, but thanks to this image his moronic idiocy will live on.

Let's break it all down . . . "Reasons for Gun Control":

#1 Guns are ICKY

Apparently, this young man was a star in his English classes (or is it language arts?)  The word, in the English language, is essentially baby talk for "making one sick."  In a sense, by using the word "icky," he is calling himself a baby.  I couldn't agree more.

#2 A "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't mean the people, it means the government.  The government was just giving itself the right to own guns. (Because that's not pointless and redundant)

Yeah, let's give the government all of the guns, and give none to the citizens.  What could go wrong?

A 94-year old woman who will be speaking at the Murrieta Holocaust Memorial March of Remembrance on Sunday, April 15, who is a concentration camp survivor, is originally from Hungary.  After World War I, the citizens of Hungary were forced to disarm.  When the Nazis arose in Germany, and they moved on Hungary, the country fell quickly, because none of the citizens were armed, therefore, none of them were capable of defending themselves against the Nazis.

One time I was perusing a high school text book and it explained the 2nd Amendment as meaning "the people have a right to keep and bear arms when a part of an approved militia, such as law enforcement, or the military."  This kid has apparently been drinking that Kool-aid by the buckets.

Studying basic history, the truth about the 2nd Amendment becomes very clear.  The problem is, basic history is not taught in public schools.  Those kids get revised history.

In the American Revolution the "militia" was defined as meaning, or at least including, the citizens.

George Mason, one of the participants of the Constitutional Convention, and the man who demanded that the Bill of Rights be written before he was willing to support the new U.S. Constitution, spelled out who the militia is quite nicely:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." 

The U.S. Code also recognizes the citizenry as being a part of the militia.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the State militias, National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.  While I hope it will never need to be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.  If the Founding Fathers had written the U.S. Code definition regarding the unorganized militia, it would probably say, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

#3 AR-15's are USELESS for hunting, home defense.  They are also the most EFFECTIVE KILLING MACHINES KNOWN TO MAN.

Talk about cognizant dissonance.

First of all, he has fallen for the propaganda.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle from a military point of view no more than a butter knife is a sword.  While the platform of the AR-15 and true assault rifles like the M-16 are the same, there are key differences that eliminate the AR-15 from the "assault rifle" definition.  The M-16 is capable of being switched from single shot to semi-automatic to fully automatic.  The AR-15 (AR stands for Armorlite Rifle, not Assault Rifle) is only a semi-automatic, which simply means that another action is not required before firing it again.  Each pull of the trigger releases one round, and it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.  The idea these people have that the AR-15 can spray bullets like a machine gun is completely false.

The AR-15 is great for hunting, but most hunters would not use it for hunting because it is not the most efficient firearm for hunting.  Personally, I like a .308 for big game, and a .22 for small game.  Any firearm is fine for hunting if you can get a merciful head shot.  Not only does the head shot kill the animal with little or no pain (because it's a quick death), but also it doesn't mess up the quality of the meat.  As for home defense, any firearm is good for home defense.  In my humble opinion, hollow point bullets are the best when it comes to stopping power.  The .22 is good because the low caliber allows the bullet to ricochet inside the body, tearing up the insides of the intruder.  In both cases they are also safer rounds because the bullet stays in the body.  Something that blows a hole through an intruder can continue along a path to strike someone else, as well.

As for the AR-15 being the most effective killing machine known to man, apparently this kid has never heard of rocket launchers, tanks, or the various assortment of bombs (all the way up to nukes) available for war.  Vehicles are effective killing machines for terrorists.  Should we ban cars and trucks, as well?  In truth, the most effective killing machine of kids the age of our sign-maker pictured above is the cell phone.  More kids die from car accidents as a result of texting than from firearms.  Should we, in response, put into place cell phone control, and ban the younger generation from having them?

Finally, the argument the kid is trying to use is the same argument the left has been using since I can remember.  "If the gun is scary, and can be used to kill people, it must be banned.  Only the military and the police should have weapons made for killing people."

Technically, that would, then, include all firearms - therefore, this bunk about them not wanting to confiscate all firearms is a lie.

The thing is, their "if it's a mean and scary gun it should be banned" argument misses the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment, frankly, was written for the purpose of the citizens being able to kill people - - - specifically evil people, or the stooges of a tyranny.  That goes back to the Webster quote up above.

#4 Governments NEVER become TYRANNICAL.

This one actually shows how disingenuous this kid really is.  He knows the reason behind the 2nd Amendment.  He understands it is for defending against our own government should it become tyrannical.  Then, with the next reason on his list, the cognizant dissonance kicks in, again.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say this kid really does believe that governments never become tyrannical.  Then, how does he explain Nazi Germany?  The Soviet Union?  Communist China?  North Korea?  Iran?  The Kmer Rouge?  The list goes on and on and on.

#5 Trump and the NRA are TYRANNICAL children hating right-wing bigots.

If, as #4 states, governments never become tyrannical, then how is it that the Trump White House is tyrannical?  And, if Trump is as bad as he thinks, if Trump is a fascist as I am sure he believes, why would he wish to disarm himself?

Calling the NRA tyrannical is even funnier.  It's an organization that supports the right to keep and bear arms.  It was originally created to help teach people to shoot better, and then later it became the organization defending the black population's right to keep and bear arms so that the black communities were capable of defending themselves against mobs of the KKK and Democrats who were trying to suppress the black vote.  In other words, the NRA was the first civil rights organization.

I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching that at this kid's school.

As for the "children-hating right-wing bigots," every mass shooting has occurred at "gun-free zones" (a left-wing idea), not a single shooter has been an NRA member, and every shooter has either been a registered Democrat, Muslim, or an adherent to left-wing principles.  As for the use of the term, "right-wing", he does know that the idea that ideologies like Nazism is right-wing is a bunch of crap, right?

When gun control is put into place, it takes away guns from law-abiding citizens, but the criminal element hangs on to their guns.  How does that make sense?

By the way, is the guy in this video a "children hating right-wing bigot"?


Gun Control is like taking the driver's licenses of law-abiding motorists away from them because of the drunk-driving epidemic, or banning big-scary SUVs that look militaristic as a way of curbing the drunk-driving problem.  It's moronic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary