Customer Reviews

The Tyranny of Gun Control

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

A small collection of pro-gun articles, that range from very good to average. The historian's review of Rome's effort to disarm an enemy (by trick)is almost worth the price of the book.

This is a must read for every American. Easy reading. I would never re-sell my copy and recommend a hardcover copy.

One early reader wrote:
"Do you truly wish felons, terrorists, mentally ill, and other "disqualified" people can acquire firearms? Does the possibility of armed criminals scare you?

If you answered yes to either of those questions, or both of those quentions, then you believe in gun control."

Do you think felons and such care about gun laws. In interviews on 20/20 with prisoners they all answered that they dont care that they shouldn't have guns or carry them. Gun control is best summed up in this:
"Do you beleive honest citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns?
Do you beleive owning a gun is immoral?
Do you think liberty should be limited?
Do you beleive self defense is immoral?

If you answered yes to any of those questions then you beleive in gun control and possible communism, socialism."

The truth is anti gunners always call anyone who doesn't agree with them a gun nut. Well Im calling them socialist/communist nuts!

Let's test that assertion with two of the "clever" questions they pose:

1. "Do you think liberty should be limited?"

Our system of laws is based upon a "balancing of interests". What that means is that rights -- about which gun-nuts love to spout -- are inextricably entwined with and inseparable from responsibilities.

And what that means in practical reality is that "your" rights -- your "liberty" of action -- is limited by your responsibility. And what is that responsibility? To not infringe my rights.

"Belief" on the point is both an avoidance of reason, and irrelevant: the reality -- the fact, not "belief" -- is that everyone's "liberty" is limited by the fact that everyone else has the equal right to not have their "liberty" infringed; that being the fact, everyone bears the responsibility to not take the "liberty" to infringe other's "liberty".

"Liberty" is only unlimited in the minds of the irresponsible. And that is exactly the view of the criminal: that they are exempt from the rule of law, a main function of which is to define and establish -- and enforce against the criminal -- the limits of one's "liberty" in relation to everyone else.

"Do you beleive self defense is immoral?"

Self-defense is not a moral issue -- except when one dodges reason, as in the above question, into a pseudo-religious/emotionalist anti-intellectualism. Self-defense is also limited by the rule of law, based upon the facts given as answer above: the person "you" would purport to "defend against" ALSO has rights. (For a directly relevant and concrete example of how the law applies to that fact, research "spring-gun".) We do not, as example, impose the death penalty on those who break-and-enter, or shoplift, or steal a motor vehicle. Nor are we justified, in (moral) reason or law, in using greater force to defend ourselves than necessary; if, as example, a person pulls a knife on you, then drops the knife, you do not have the right to pick up the knife and stab that person, let alone shoot him.

I realize those facts are more complex than the simpleton's anti-Constitutional criminal rationales propounded by such as the NRA, thus less easy to swallow unquestioned, less easily believed than the gun-nut's anti-intellectualism masquerading as self-justifying pseudo-"religion". But that is the reality in our society: you don't have the right to "defend against" any and all, for whatever cockamamy excuse you can fantasize, and to any degree you feel like, and then claim it was "self-defense".

The immorality is in the disingenuous pretense that doing so is instead moral.

Any book, such as this, which presents false moral claims -- claims tantamount to a criminal's self-justifications -- is not merely irresponsible -- and thus immoral -- it is illiterate sociopathic trash for sociopaths.

Do you truly wish felons, terrorists, mentally ill, and other "disqualified" people can acquire firearms? Does the possibility of armed criminals scare you?

If you answered yes to either of those questions, or both of those quentions, then you believe in gun control.

The problem is that "gun control" is an amorphous subject, rather like tyranny. One person's tyranny can be another's freedom.

One person fears losing his firearms, the other his ability to walk the streets without fear of being shot.

The problem is that most people, even those who claim to be RKBA, actually would like to see gun control. The problem is that both sides have clouded the topic and don't work toward consensus.

This book is divisive and counterproductive. The title reeks of "gun nut" in all its negative connotations.

I would suggest reading a book that is unbiased in discussing the politics of "gun control" and tries to dispassionately examine the topic rather than this book.