Why are Gun Rights such a fanatical religion in America? How do guns contribute anything to happiness or freedom?
Posted: June 24th, 2015, 4:33 pm
I've been meaning to ask about something for a long time. I don't get the whole Gun Control debate. Why is everyone in the conspiracy movement, alternative media and all right wingers, libertarians and conservatives, against Gun Control so much? What is wrong with it? Why does the Alex Jones crowd rant about it so much and make a big issue out of it, as though guns were critical to keeping our freedoms? Why are Americans so obsessed with owning guns? The Michael Moore documentary "Bowling For Columbine" made a lot of sense about how crazy and gun-obsessed Americans are for no reason.
There seems to be a lot of false assumptions about Gun Control that don't make sense and have no basic logic to them. Let me elaborate.
1. First of all, there seems to be this assumption that Gun Control = Government tyranny and fascism. Americans believe that the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment because guns keep power in the hands of the people, and prevents government tyranny. This is like a religion in America. But it makes no sense. Just do some traveling and get out of America and you will see. In most other countries, you cannot buy a gun, so there is no Gun Control debate. Yet most other countries have NO government tyranny and in fact have a lot LESS LAWS than America does, so in that sense they have MORE FREEDOM than America does.
For example, in Europe, you cannot buy a gun in most countries. Yet there is no government tyranny or fascism. People walk around freely. And unless you commit a crime, no one bothers you, which is true even in America. Even in England, police and constables do not traditionally carry a gun, so I think that's the best solution, for both people and police to not carry guns.
So if lack of guns doesn't lead to government tyranny in other countries, then why would it in America? What's the basis of that assumption? Why is this obvious fact never brought up in the alternative media or conspiracy movement? Instead, there is this notion that government tyranny is everywhere, which is very exaggerated.
When I went to China I found out that it's virtually impossible to buy a gun there, even in the black market. Thus there is NO gun violence or gun homicide in China like there is in the US. Isn't that a good thing? Why is this never brought up in America? Instead China is portrayed as a dictatorship with no freedom, where people are dreaming of Western "democracy". What a joke.
(There's no such thing as a democracy, the word is not even in the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence. And even if there were, the media can easily control people to think anything the elite want. Plus mob rule (or majority rule) is not a stable form of government, only a Republic (rule of law) is. Western democracy is a sham, voting doesn't make a difference because the same oligarchical cabal controls all political candidates.)
In China, no police bothered me. They had security guards on the streets, yeah, but they usually just sat on the corner looking relaxed and bored. They did not bother anyone or harass anyone. And their faces looked polite and humble. The police in Asia do not enjoy bullying people like cops in America do. Watch the movie "Babel (2006)" with Brad Pitt and you will see how humble and polite the detective in Japan is, compared to the bullying nature of the US border patrol depicted, which was very realistic. The difference there is astounding and shows what I mean. Anyhow, as long as you don't commit a crime, the police do not bother you and no government agent comes to your door. This is true in the US too. So why all the paranoia about government tyranny?
Yes, in China there are many laws that restrict people in many ways. People cannot even move to another city without permission. But the US has tons of excessive laws and red tape too. It is not more free than China, not by any means.
Also in China there is no liberal political correctness when it comes to social issues, thus you can be more honest about those things than you can in the US, which requires staunch liberal political correctness when it comes to social issues. In China, you can say what you want as long as you don't incite revolution against the government. Though you can't openly talk about government conspiracies in China, you can freely criticize liberalism, which you can't in America. So it's a tradeoff. China has more free speech in certain areas but the US has more free speech in other areas, such as talking about government conspiracies. However, the US may officially have free speech but at the same time you are punished or censored if you talk about anything taboo or politically incorrect. So it is not real free speech, only "free speech within narrow boundaries" (as Noam Chomsky said). Even in a dictatorship like Cuba or North Korea, you can say whatever you want, as long as it's in private behind closed doors. So the NET result is really the same.
Anyhow the point is, the rest of the world does not allow regular citizens to buy guns, so why do Americans treat it as a fundamental important right that they need or else they will lose their freedom? It's totally baseless, yet Americans are obsessed with it like it's a religion.
The fact is, a government cannot take away your freedom nor can it give you your freedom. Government is all about control on the macro scale, not the micro scale. Normally government officials will not bother you unless you give them a reason to. You are not even worth their time, despite what you think. Your government does not have time to bother every private citizen or interfere directly in your private life. When was the last time government agents came directly to your door to bother you or tell you what to do? Your job and your family in fact, affect your freedom a lot more directly than any government does. Think about it.
Americans are the most paranoid people on the planet. If you travel a lot, you will realize this, since excessive paranoia isn't the norm in most countries, including those with high crime such as Mexico or the Philippines. Most American paranoia is unjustified, irrational and unnecessary. Yet the conspiracy goes along with it, because it seems to be fear and paranoia based. Any emotion, including paranoia, can become an addiction and induce an adrenaline rush. That's why Alex Jones is said to be selling "paranoia porn". lol
2. Second, why does anyone need to carry around a gun? Even if you live in a dangerous area, as long as you practice common sense street smarts, you will be ok. There are not criminals waiting around every corner, like is portrayed in the movies. If someone mugs you and pulls out their gun first, even if you have a gun it's too late. But even if someone mugs you by pulling out a knife, all you have to do is give them some cash and they will leave. They're not gonna kill you for no reason. You just have to be smart enough not to carry around too much cash. You don't need to carry around more than 200 dollars cash on you. You can use credit cards for your other expenses. If you want something for self defense, why not just carry pepper spray, or a tazer, or learn martial arts?
3. Third, why would I feel safe if every random person around me has a gun? I certainly would not. Yet the conspiracy movement and libertarians hold this belief that government is bad and people are good, which is very black and white. There is this assumption that if all ordinary citizens have guns, society will not be any less safe than if they didn't. They assume that general people and ordinary citizens are not dangerous, only government is. This is totally baseless and doesn't make sense.
Just watch any Wild West movie and you will see that when everyone has a gun, the slightest bar fight, temper tantrum, argument or squabble, can easily turn into a gunfight where people get shot and killed. I certainly would not feel safe if many people around me had guns. Why would I assume that everyone around me is sane, mentally stable, and fully capable of self-control? That's totally baseless, yet that's what is assumed by anti-gun control crowd. But the fact is, anyone around you could be a psycho. If everyone, or many people, had guns on them, then anytime I piss someone off for any reason, someone could pull out a gun in the heat of an argument and threaten my life or safety. Why would that be a good thing?! Why would I want that risk looming about? So stupid!
We all know that many Americans have a hot temper and short fuse. They are frustrated and easily angered. So why would it be a good idea for everyone to be carrying around a gun if they wanted to? It doesn't make any sense at all and defies all wisdom and common sense. Isn't this obvious? So why do so many "independent thinkers" and "freedom lovers" in America think it's ok for everyone to carry a gun? Just because you are "anti-government" does not mean you should trust every common citizen around you and feel safe around them. The logic doesn't follow.
Even if someone is generally peaceful and nonviolent, they could decide to lose it at any time for any reason. Anyone could be having a bad day and suddenly lose it over a little thing. Why would I want that risk hanging overhead? Someone on a bus could decide to lose it and start shooting everyone on board. Or someone in an office could lose it and start shooting at his coworkers. Why leave such a risk open? Why trust that no one will ever lose it and go on a violent killing spree? That's very foolish.
We all have a DARK SIDE. Everyone does, because in our reality, everything exists as a union of opposites as depicted in the Chinese Ying Yang symbol. Anyone can lose it and let their dark side take over at any time (like Annakin Skywalker did in "Star Wars Revenge of the Sith"). And if they do, why would I want them carrying a gun when they do? It doesn't make sense.
Policemen and National Guardsmen do not usually fire at random citizens. Yeah there are cases where they do such as during public protests during the Vietnam War. But those are very rare incidents. I have yet to hear of police teams going around on a rampage or killing spree for no reason. But there are civilian psychos who have done that and made the news, as we all know. So this assumption that only government is dangerous when it has guns, but private citizens are not, is unwarranted. It's like a religion, not reality. So where does it come from? What's the logic behind it? I don't get it.
4. Fourth, the ant-gun control crowd likes to say that "Guns don't kill. People do." This is stupid. Of course guns don't kill people by themselves. It takes a shooter to do so. But that's like saying that cars don't drive, people do. The fact is, you need BOTH a gun and a shooter, or a car and driver, not just one or the other. It takes two.
In a society with no guns, killing people becomes harder and takes more work, as it should. Guns make killing too easy. Anyone can pull a trigger. So why make killing easier if it's a bad thing? If killing is made harder, for example if people had to use a knife or spear or sword to kill others, or use rocks or their bare hands, then it would take more work and skill, and thus probably reduce the frequency of killing. It would probably reduce casualties in war too. Wouldn't that be better? Why make something bad or undesirable happen more easily? That's illogical and unwise.
If killing others was something more up close and personal, then people would be more hesitant to do it. But if you make it so easy that one can kill others at a distance, with a rifle for example, then it comes less personal and easier to do casually. That's why guns are a very bad invention. I think both private citizens and government should not carry them. That would be the best scenario.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the logic and assumptions of the anti-gun control crowd don't hold water and don't make sense. So what is their rationale behind it? It seems like a religion to them. Is there any validity to their side? If not, what's the big fuss? Why is this a social issue or hot topic?
There seems to be a lot of false assumptions about Gun Control that don't make sense and have no basic logic to them. Let me elaborate.
1. First of all, there seems to be this assumption that Gun Control = Government tyranny and fascism. Americans believe that the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment because guns keep power in the hands of the people, and prevents government tyranny. This is like a religion in America. But it makes no sense. Just do some traveling and get out of America and you will see. In most other countries, you cannot buy a gun, so there is no Gun Control debate. Yet most other countries have NO government tyranny and in fact have a lot LESS LAWS than America does, so in that sense they have MORE FREEDOM than America does.
For example, in Europe, you cannot buy a gun in most countries. Yet there is no government tyranny or fascism. People walk around freely. And unless you commit a crime, no one bothers you, which is true even in America. Even in England, police and constables do not traditionally carry a gun, so I think that's the best solution, for both people and police to not carry guns.
So if lack of guns doesn't lead to government tyranny in other countries, then why would it in America? What's the basis of that assumption? Why is this obvious fact never brought up in the alternative media or conspiracy movement? Instead, there is this notion that government tyranny is everywhere, which is very exaggerated.
When I went to China I found out that it's virtually impossible to buy a gun there, even in the black market. Thus there is NO gun violence or gun homicide in China like there is in the US. Isn't that a good thing? Why is this never brought up in America? Instead China is portrayed as a dictatorship with no freedom, where people are dreaming of Western "democracy". What a joke.
(There's no such thing as a democracy, the word is not even in the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence. And even if there were, the media can easily control people to think anything the elite want. Plus mob rule (or majority rule) is not a stable form of government, only a Republic (rule of law) is. Western democracy is a sham, voting doesn't make a difference because the same oligarchical cabal controls all political candidates.)
In China, no police bothered me. They had security guards on the streets, yeah, but they usually just sat on the corner looking relaxed and bored. They did not bother anyone or harass anyone. And their faces looked polite and humble. The police in Asia do not enjoy bullying people like cops in America do. Watch the movie "Babel (2006)" with Brad Pitt and you will see how humble and polite the detective in Japan is, compared to the bullying nature of the US border patrol depicted, which was very realistic. The difference there is astounding and shows what I mean. Anyhow, as long as you don't commit a crime, the police do not bother you and no government agent comes to your door. This is true in the US too. So why all the paranoia about government tyranny?
Yes, in China there are many laws that restrict people in many ways. People cannot even move to another city without permission. But the US has tons of excessive laws and red tape too. It is not more free than China, not by any means.
Also in China there is no liberal political correctness when it comes to social issues, thus you can be more honest about those things than you can in the US, which requires staunch liberal political correctness when it comes to social issues. In China, you can say what you want as long as you don't incite revolution against the government. Though you can't openly talk about government conspiracies in China, you can freely criticize liberalism, which you can't in America. So it's a tradeoff. China has more free speech in certain areas but the US has more free speech in other areas, such as talking about government conspiracies. However, the US may officially have free speech but at the same time you are punished or censored if you talk about anything taboo or politically incorrect. So it is not real free speech, only "free speech within narrow boundaries" (as Noam Chomsky said). Even in a dictatorship like Cuba or North Korea, you can say whatever you want, as long as it's in private behind closed doors. So the NET result is really the same.
Anyhow the point is, the rest of the world does not allow regular citizens to buy guns, so why do Americans treat it as a fundamental important right that they need or else they will lose their freedom? It's totally baseless, yet Americans are obsessed with it like it's a religion.
The fact is, a government cannot take away your freedom nor can it give you your freedom. Government is all about control on the macro scale, not the micro scale. Normally government officials will not bother you unless you give them a reason to. You are not even worth their time, despite what you think. Your government does not have time to bother every private citizen or interfere directly in your private life. When was the last time government agents came directly to your door to bother you or tell you what to do? Your job and your family in fact, affect your freedom a lot more directly than any government does. Think about it.
Americans are the most paranoid people on the planet. If you travel a lot, you will realize this, since excessive paranoia isn't the norm in most countries, including those with high crime such as Mexico or the Philippines. Most American paranoia is unjustified, irrational and unnecessary. Yet the conspiracy goes along with it, because it seems to be fear and paranoia based. Any emotion, including paranoia, can become an addiction and induce an adrenaline rush. That's why Alex Jones is said to be selling "paranoia porn". lol
2. Second, why does anyone need to carry around a gun? Even if you live in a dangerous area, as long as you practice common sense street smarts, you will be ok. There are not criminals waiting around every corner, like is portrayed in the movies. If someone mugs you and pulls out their gun first, even if you have a gun it's too late. But even if someone mugs you by pulling out a knife, all you have to do is give them some cash and they will leave. They're not gonna kill you for no reason. You just have to be smart enough not to carry around too much cash. You don't need to carry around more than 200 dollars cash on you. You can use credit cards for your other expenses. If you want something for self defense, why not just carry pepper spray, or a tazer, or learn martial arts?
3. Third, why would I feel safe if every random person around me has a gun? I certainly would not. Yet the conspiracy movement and libertarians hold this belief that government is bad and people are good, which is very black and white. There is this assumption that if all ordinary citizens have guns, society will not be any less safe than if they didn't. They assume that general people and ordinary citizens are not dangerous, only government is. This is totally baseless and doesn't make sense.
Just watch any Wild West movie and you will see that when everyone has a gun, the slightest bar fight, temper tantrum, argument or squabble, can easily turn into a gunfight where people get shot and killed. I certainly would not feel safe if many people around me had guns. Why would I assume that everyone around me is sane, mentally stable, and fully capable of self-control? That's totally baseless, yet that's what is assumed by anti-gun control crowd. But the fact is, anyone around you could be a psycho. If everyone, or many people, had guns on them, then anytime I piss someone off for any reason, someone could pull out a gun in the heat of an argument and threaten my life or safety. Why would that be a good thing?! Why would I want that risk looming about? So stupid!
We all know that many Americans have a hot temper and short fuse. They are frustrated and easily angered. So why would it be a good idea for everyone to be carrying around a gun if they wanted to? It doesn't make any sense at all and defies all wisdom and common sense. Isn't this obvious? So why do so many "independent thinkers" and "freedom lovers" in America think it's ok for everyone to carry a gun? Just because you are "anti-government" does not mean you should trust every common citizen around you and feel safe around them. The logic doesn't follow.
Even if someone is generally peaceful and nonviolent, they could decide to lose it at any time for any reason. Anyone could be having a bad day and suddenly lose it over a little thing. Why would I want that risk hanging overhead? Someone on a bus could decide to lose it and start shooting everyone on board. Or someone in an office could lose it and start shooting at his coworkers. Why leave such a risk open? Why trust that no one will ever lose it and go on a violent killing spree? That's very foolish.
We all have a DARK SIDE. Everyone does, because in our reality, everything exists as a union of opposites as depicted in the Chinese Ying Yang symbol. Anyone can lose it and let their dark side take over at any time (like Annakin Skywalker did in "Star Wars Revenge of the Sith"). And if they do, why would I want them carrying a gun when they do? It doesn't make sense.
Policemen and National Guardsmen do not usually fire at random citizens. Yeah there are cases where they do such as during public protests during the Vietnam War. But those are very rare incidents. I have yet to hear of police teams going around on a rampage or killing spree for no reason. But there are civilian psychos who have done that and made the news, as we all know. So this assumption that only government is dangerous when it has guns, but private citizens are not, is unwarranted. It's like a religion, not reality. So where does it come from? What's the logic behind it? I don't get it.
4. Fourth, the ant-gun control crowd likes to say that "Guns don't kill. People do." This is stupid. Of course guns don't kill people by themselves. It takes a shooter to do so. But that's like saying that cars don't drive, people do. The fact is, you need BOTH a gun and a shooter, or a car and driver, not just one or the other. It takes two.
In a society with no guns, killing people becomes harder and takes more work, as it should. Guns make killing too easy. Anyone can pull a trigger. So why make killing easier if it's a bad thing? If killing is made harder, for example if people had to use a knife or spear or sword to kill others, or use rocks or their bare hands, then it would take more work and skill, and thus probably reduce the frequency of killing. It would probably reduce casualties in war too. Wouldn't that be better? Why make something bad or undesirable happen more easily? That's illogical and unwise.
If killing others was something more up close and personal, then people would be more hesitant to do it. But if you make it so easy that one can kill others at a distance, with a rifle for example, then it comes less personal and easier to do casually. That's why guns are a very bad invention. I think both private citizens and government should not carry them. That would be the best scenario.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the logic and assumptions of the anti-gun control crowd don't hold water and don't make sense. So what is their rationale behind it? It seems like a religion to them. Is there any validity to their side? If not, what's the big fuss? Why is this a social issue or hot topic?