Gun Control with Ted Nugent

I have been asked to write a blog about my stance on gun control by a friend of mine who also happens to be a cop. I’ll relay an interesting anecdote from him in a moment, but first, let’s hear from someone who is even more passionate about gun rights than I am. That fellow’s name is Ted Nugent.

It is interesting to me that people always point only to the 2nd amendment as justification for owning guns. Of course, I do believe that the 2nd amendment does guarantee us just that, but Ted makes an excellent point right out of the gate. All beings, from mankind right down to the tiniest of organisms, understand and embrace their natural right to defend their own life. If their thought process is developed enough they also extend that right to envelope defending others that are close to them. No one has ever had to explain or justify to a monkey why, when attacked, it should, can, and will use every means available to defend itself. As in Ted’s example, if you attacked an imaginary man who was completely separated from any society, this man would require no justification or explanation for defending himself from you by whatever means he had at his disposal.

Those who disagree with the right to keep and bear arms for the private citizen often say that it is guns that allow for so much violence in society. They point to tragedies where gunmen wander through schools or stores and mow down innocents, then scream that guns need to be restricted. The argument falls short for a plethora of reasons.

First, examine the method by which we are supposed to restrict the ownership of guns. That method is by creating laws. If we just had another law to prevent murderer Bob from having a gun, then we wouldn’t have any problem. This argument requires that you forget that the murder, or robbery, or rape, or whatever other crime the person committed while using his gun, was also outlawed. A criminal is, by definition, a lawbreaker. Clearly, they will not be deterred simply because there is a law standing in their way. Their victims on the other hand are lawabiding citizens, who will be deterred from bearing arms if there is a law against it. In other words, the only people who you will disarm are the very people who won’t commit the crimes you are trying to prevent in the first place! By outlawing and restricting guns you are creating an environment where the lawbreakers have fire superiority over the common citizenry.

Second, their premise is that if you could channel Harry Potter and magic away every gun in America, presumably except those in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel, then violence would likewise diminish. This argument makes the supposition that human violence is linked to the tool, and not the fallen nature of humanity itself. If you read just a little history you will find that humans have been killing humans long before they had guns. In fact, they didn’t even need knives, though that made it a bit more efficient. Humans have been killing humans since they could pick up rocks and sticks. The problem is the violence of humanity, not the instrument of violence.

Third, since we do not have any Harry Potter wands, they assume that our omnipotent government can keep the guns away from those who aren’t supposed to have them. Remember, our government cannot stop half starved refugees from crossing into Florida in leaky rafts. How are they to stop a well funded black market of firearms? Even Britain, which is many times smaller than America, cannot close its borders to guns. If you don’t believe, simply Google “drive by shooting London” and see the evidence for yourself. How much more porous would our own, much more massive borders be?

Fourth, they blind themselves to the possibility of violence used for good. This goes beyond the scenarios of war and police actions. The private citizen, too, is capable of committing justified violence, even killing, without any malicious intent.

Take, for example, the anecdote of my cop friend. In our city robbers who are attempting to hold up convenience stores have noticed that if they simply pull a gun and demand money the clerk will often be able to press the silent alarm, resulting in the capture of the criminal. So, the criminals have adapted by pulling the gun, shooting the clerk in the stomach, and then demanding the money. The now incapacitated clerk has no choice but to comply. On a video my friend was shown this very thing happened. If guns were kept out of the hands of private citizens, then the story would end with the thief making off with the cash and the world would possibly be minus one convenience store clerk.

Fortunately this is not the case. In the back of the store was Joe Six-pack, presumably there to get his next case of Bud. Joe happened to be a concealed carrying his .45. Upon hearing the shot and demand for money, Joe pulled his weapon. He took cover behind one of the aisle dividers and shot the criminal. The criminal fired back. Joe took cover, ducked out again, and shot the criminal again. The gun battle ended with one dead robber, one wounded but living clerk, one victorious armed private citizen, and no crime being successfully committed. The only dead person at the end of the day was the criminal.

An entire other article could be made going into the origins and intent of the 2nd amendment itself. I believe that this, while useful and true, is wholly unnecessary. I have the right to defend myself, with a gun if I am able, against anyone who threatens me, my family, or any other person I choose to defend.

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.”

”If you’re coming to take my guns, you better bring guns.”

And my personal favorite:

”Peace through superior firepower.”