I’m getting reports from all over that gun stores throughout the Twin Cities area have ammunition! .380 is still a problem although a local shop has brass for you if you want to reload it yourself. Yes they even have primers of all things. Hopefully we’re looking at the tail end of the shortage.
This deals with recent happenings in Honduras…
Apparently the elected leader of Honduras decided his position should be for life. Although he was elected he decided to do a full power grab. Well apparently the people didn’t appreciate that gesture and with assistance from the military booted his ass out. Here is the part that really irks me though, it’s Obama’s response…
We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections. The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don’t want to go back to a dark past.
I won’t argue with military coups being a bad method of dealing with governmental transitions. But when a political figured decided to go beyond the power he was granted in the democratic election something needs to be done. You can’t elect out a dictator-wannabe. Therefore the option of force becomes necessary. This wasn’t a random military general decided to grab power but people of a country wanting to get rid of a person who was overstepping his bounds.
The fact is those of us in America are expected to do the exact same thing if our political leaders would decided to grab power. That is why we have the second amendment and why our military takes a creed to defend this country against both foreign and domestic enemies.
I applaud the people of Honduras for doing what needed to be done. There are times when force is absolutely necessary to avoid bigger problems. It’s hard to oust a dictator once he’s cemented power.
This shouldn’t be possible in Oceania but apparently the magical gun protection barrier that stops all gun crime in the country has failed again…
Apparently somebody fired up to three shots into a household in Northern Ireland. Of course as you know guns are all but totally illegal in Oceania so this shouldn’t be possible. I mean guns are illegal how could somebody break the law? At least the couple who lived there were unable to defend themselves. I mean if the shooter would have entered the house and the couple living there were armed they might have shot the intruder!
Thankfully Big Brother has made self defense illegal so good hard working criminals can go about the daily business without fear of being shot by a law abiding citizen.
OK I spend a lot of time bitching out the anti-gunners. I do this because I don’t understand them. They argue with emotions instead of facts which I find ridiculous. The lack of doing any critical thinking scares me in fact. And it’s so easy to see their arguments are emotional because when they try to debate the subject of gun control with an intelligent pro-gun person they are easily ensnared in hypocrisy.
For instance many anti-gunners claim they detest violence. They say we need to ban guns because they are violent devices that no civilized person should use. What they really mean is they detest performing a violent act themselves. When you ask many anti-gunners what their plan is during a home invasion it’s usually “Call the police.” And often upon arriving the police end up having to use violence to nab the home invader, often time after that invader has already harmed or killed the family inside the house.
Another part of the anti-gunner mentality is the lack of personal responsibility. This is apparent when they talk about guns causing violence. Take The Brady Bunch for instance, they say guns kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. They never say people using guns kill other people. There is a huge difference between the two. When you say a gun kills somebody you are saying the device is the cause of death. When you talk to a pro-gun person they will tell you the person with the gun killed the other person. This is because they realize a gun has no morals and no will of it’s own. Without a human using the gun it can’t do anything.
Once again hypocrisy comes into play. If somebody falls off of a roof and dies upon impact most people would say his death was due to him or her falling off of a roof. If we were to blame the device that actually killed him, gravity, we would say, “He was killed with gravity.” No anti-gunner I’ve talked to has described a fall this way because they know gravity is a force with no morals and no free will. But somehow guns are a different class of item with no morals and no free will.
Another observation I have about anti-gunners is the fact they love the role of the victim. This ties in with the hatred of personal responsibility. If you are the victim of a crime you have somebody to blame for your lack of good fortune. A finger can easily be pointed at somebody as the cause for your misery. I’m not in the business of blaming victims but there is something to say to being a victim who just gives up and being a victim who fought their damnedest.
For instance there is no guarantee having a gun on your person can prevent you from being murdered. But having that gun certainly increases your chances of survival. Hell even if you don’t have a gun if you fight your hardest against an attacker with your bare hands you are at least showing a desire to survive and not be a victim. When you ask an anti-gunner what to do in a situation where you’re confronted with an attacker you often get a line similar to, “Just do what the criminal says and you’ll come out fine.” The act of surrendering to an attacker and does not ensure your survival. How can you trust the word of a man who has threatened you? You can’t? But anti-gunners would rather you trust the word of a criminal instead of the capabilities of a law abiding citizen with a gun.
And of course if you bring up the idea of owning guns as a check and balance against a tyrannical government anti-gunners will call you paranoid and tell you that the United States government would never turn tyrannical. They also spew nonsense about citizens with guns wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should they turn tyrannical anyways. They refuse to stop and think about the situation. They won’t consider the fact much of the military would defect and many would be unwilling to fire on civilians. They also lack the historical knowledge to know what a few poor malnourished farmers with AK-47s did to our soldiers in a small country called Vietnam.
So as far as I can see the anti-gunner is a create of illogical arguments and false ideas. I’ve not met one who can put up an argument based on factual evidence. Maybe some day I will find that person but until they I will stay strong with my opinion.