To a cancer cell, heathy tissue is the cancer.

Comparing gun control to an addiction or a cancer wouldn't be very original. It has been done. For anybody not familiar, the idea is that the desire for gun control stems from some belief that it is a solution to violence and crime. A common effect of gun control however is an increase in crime and violence as law abiding targets disarm. The result is a greater call for more gun control and so on. That is the addiction portion.

Once an area has reached the point of imploding on itself due to violence despite an extreme gun control / ban that area looks outward and determines that it is the outside world not adopting their gun bans that is causing their problems. They then seek to force their surrounding areas to do the same as they have. Then the cycle continues. That is the cancer portion.

So what brings this up? Well I came across an article that tried to make the case that the cancer in this debate is the belief that people have a right to keep and bear arms at an individual level. To quote:

America has a cancer, an interpretative error originating in our government’s DNA, the Constitution. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court handed down an errant interpretation in District of Columbia v. Heller, exacerbating the misconception that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

So to counter the plain wording on the second amendment, the author falls back on an interpretation that has never been supported by the supreme court, is completely at odds with the reasoning used to protect the first amendment, and is contrary to the spirit of the amendment made clear in every discussion had about it during the drafting and ratification.

To make the case that the second amendment was never meant to be individual, the author offers the following:

One needn’t be a Constitutional law professor to discern the Founding Fathers’ intent in the Second Amendment. The original draft as presented to the first session of the First Congress read:

”The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Clearly, the Constitution’s drafters placed gun ownership solely in the context of organized military service. Even the Amendment’s final version retains and begins with the phrase, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

This makes me wonder if the author has any concept of what the term militia means in the constitutional sense. He claims to be former military yet clearly has no understanding of the militant structure that existed at the time the second amendment was ratified. The militia was every able bodied male over 16. More over, the framers abhorred the idea of a standing army existing while the populace is disarmed. Those two facts run contrary to the authors entire article.

The author then tries to legitimize his viewpoint with the same old emotional appeal:

Before the advent of firearms, becoming dangerous meant years of training if not a lifetime’s upbringing in a warrior caste. Using his credit card, Virginia Tech madman Seung-Hui Cho paid $571 for a Glock 19 pistol and a box of fifty bullets. A Glock 19 weighs slightly less than a quart of milk; it measures under seven inches long. Its operation is simple: load, point, shoot fifteen times, reload. In nine minutes, Cho killed 30 people, wounding dozens more.

First off, being dangerous without a gun is quite simple. Nut jobs in regions where guns have been banned and largely eliminated have quite effectively committed mass murder with knives, axes, and things like that. The difference is before guns, you had to find an area where you could physically dominate each and every person in an area since you would be attacking them face to face. With guns in the picture a 90 year old grandma who still has decent vision could stop such an attacker if she is armed. So simply finding a physically weak populace is no longer sufficient. Now the attacker has to find something else: a population with little to no chance of a law abiding victim having a gun.

In the authors emoting rant, he forgets to mention that mass shootings not only occur by and large in gun free zones, but account for only a minute fraction of the violence law abiding people risk even in their homes, but also going about their lives outside the home.

If it were possible to simply wish away every gun in existence and erase any concept of how they can be made, that might be a decent solution. Even then I would make the case that the physically frail deserve the level playing field that firearms have made possible. But at least it would be a partially viable solution. But seeing as governments have no intention of disarming (and happen to collectively be the greatest firearm-using-murderers for as long as firearms have existed), and criminals can make firearms in garages with hand tools even if the normal black market channels went dry, the argument that stripping the civilian populace of arms is for their good falls flat.

By now, most people have heard of the story involving Meleanie Hain being killed by her husband in a murder suicide. The stories comming out of the Huffington Post, and and Brady Bunch only prove what type of ilk anti-gun rights activists are.

Points that have been asserted by these scum bags and their supporters:

• She was made less safe by her owning a gun
• Her gun contributed to her death
• She liked to intimidate children with her gun
• There is no possibility that a person would need to be able to defend themselves at a soccer game or while shopping
• She deserved what she got

If each of these assertions were true, it would still be in poor taste to say such things about the dead. But each of these assertions are blatantly false. So what would motivate groups and their supporters to not only smear the dead, but to knowingly and deliberately lie and deceive while doing it? It is to this depth that the anti-gun lobby will sink to push their agenda. A number of liberal rags immediately posted smears agianst her. The most blatent of these was the Huffington Post which insinuated that she somehow contributed to her own death by owning a gun and approved a comment saying that she deserved what she got (that comment was eventually taken down - I flagged once every 10 minutes for a few hours). Notibly, I posted a comment that (not to my surprise) was never posted despite their site policy not to politically censor comments. My comments was:

From what I've read so far there are a few points that absolutely need to be thrown in the face of anti-gunners that attempt to capitalize on this.

1 - She was murdered. She is not some political pawn. RIP
2 - She was not shot with her own gun. Her gun in no way contributed to her death.
3 - Her husband (the murderous scumbag who got off far too easy for what he did) was a police officer - one of the only ones who can do no wrong. One of the ones the brady campaign for insanity thinks should have firearms while the rest of us (including her) should not.
4 - She mentioned in an interview on Gun Nut Talk that she does not carry at home. Something to consider if you live with a mentally unstable police officer who you are in the process of leaving.

Anti gunners who try to spin this as an example of a gun making you less safe need to have these points thrown in their faces.

Her tragic death cannot be allowed to be twisted into anti gun or even anti OC fodder.

I'm not surprised that it was censored. They have a tendency to only approve the few comments that agree with these scum bags, and a few opposing comments as long as the comment doesn't have any real consistency.

More Proof that Communities Need More Laws Against Weapons

According to THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, a student armed with vicious knives a powerful and lethal ax, and not one but two fire bombs known as Molotov Cocktails attacked his schoolmates injuring nine people before police came to the rescue preventing further bloodshed.

When will enough be enough? How many children have to be burned by fire bombs, or hacked with knives and axes designed to cut things? Why are there not laws to prevent these things? Common sense restrictions on flammable liquids, and sharp objects are needed to protect the children. We need locks on our gas tanks, and laws that punish unscrupulous gas dealers that sell gas to criminals and negligent car owners that don't report gas theft to the police. We must ban glass bottles, and ensure that only the right people are able to own knives and axes. The world will be a better place when there are no more glass bottles, knives, or axes free to ravage our communities, and whatever inconvenience this may cause is worth it for the children.

So lets stand up to the glass bottle lobby and the knife and ax lobbies and the gas lobby. They lie and deceive the people just so that they can make a profit. They know full well that their product will inevitably burn and cut people, but they make them anyway. Never mind the accountability of the student who attacked his classmates. With these vicious weapons at his disposal, how could he resist? It is time to take a stand for the children.