Friends, let us begin with a small history lesson, shall we? A long long time ago, to the land where Ted Kennedy would later kill a woman and get away scott free and where Elizabeth Warren proclaimed her indigenous credentials, there came a revolution. Soon, thirteen colonies rose, took up arms and beat back their former rulers. Key to this revolution was the act of taking up arms. The revolutionaries understood that fact. So too did the Crown. In fact, one of the first things the crown tried to do as signs of unrest became evident was to confiscate arms and gun powder. The Crown recognized that, to keep power, they needed to be the only ones armed. You see where I am going here, right?
When it came time to create the new government of The United States of America, the founding fathers understood that the government could not be the only ones with guns. The second amendment was written specifically to make sure that did not happen. It was not written so people could hunt or sport shoot. It was not written for home defense against burglars, gangs or Antifa. It was written for the sole reason to make sure the citizens could never be made completely subservient to the military of the central government. In short, the constitution keeps the stage set for another revolution when a revolution is needed.
Now lets fast forward to the world in which we live today. Tragically we have a number of batsh@t crazy, radicalized and/or evil people in the wo
rld. From time to time those people commit horrifying crimes. In the United States, many of these crimes are committed using guns. All people of intelligence and with a good heart can agree that these crimes are terrible and must be stopped. Unfortunately, that is where the agreement ends. As to what needs to be done to stop them, there is no agreement and there is, indeed, deeply rooted disagreement. The loudest faction likes to blame the guns themselves for hideous murders. They instantly call for gun control because we all know that laws are 100% effective. After all, look at how well they work when it comes to drugs!
Within hours of the Las Vegas tragedy, Hillary Clinton removed her head from her rectal cavity where she has been searching for What Happened long enough to essentially blame the NRA for making the shooting happen. Soon, everyone in Moral Aristocracy climbed upon their glass pedestals and sang in unison “Gun Control, Gun Control”. When asked what specific gun control idea would have stopped this attack many slipped off their pedestals until those pedestals became firmly entrenched beside Hillary’s head. Watching the news was like watching a two-year-old argue. (I am sorry. That was offensive to two-year-olds). The arguments they did make made no sense. There was no specificity. And I am pretty sure I watched three people on the floor kicking and screaming. Since none of them could offer specifics let’s explore some of the most common gun control ideas.
Back Ground Checks: Depending on who you listen to, somewhere between 85% and 132% of American believe that background checks need to be done before someone can purchase a gun. No doubt background checks would stop all gun-related crime. The moral aristocracy would have us believe that 40% of guns purchased legally in the US are bought without a background check. According to Politifact, that claim is false and the actual number is between 14% and 22%. Certainly, most gun-related crimes are committed by people who fall into that percentage.
Actually, when researchers asked convicted criminals where they got their guns, they found something that is certain to stun us all. They found, in separate studies, that only between 3% and 11% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally! Whoa! Mind blowing isn’t it? I mean, what kind of criminal would use an illegal gun? The nerve! The audacity! Where’s Hillary? It might be time to have all these criminals suicided for not fitting her narrative. Where’s Debbie? She can have them Seth Riched.
Continuing my “fun with gun math” segment, I will use the numbers that best fit the moral aristocracy’s story: Of the 11% of the people committing crimes using legal guns, 22% did not get a background check. Using that logic, in the worst-case scenario it would be somewhat fair to say that 2.42% of all crimes committed with guns are committed by people who skirted background checks by purchasing guns privately or at gun shows. How can there be any doubt that closing the “Gun Show Loophole” would solve all gun related crimes?
Oh wait, I forgot one last little tiny detail. The Las Vegas killer (who’s name I will not utter or type) had more than 30 background checks. They all came up clean.
None of this is to say that I do not believe in background checks personally. I do. But the fact of the matter is, ensuring the extra 2.42% get checked really wont accomplish a damn thing.
So, what have we learned about background checks? 1) Most gun purchases are made with them; 2) Most criminals don’t actually buy guns legally (I’m still in shock); 3) Even with a background check, crazy @ss evil morons still get through.
Mental Health: The moral aristocracy’s narrative goes something like this: “Our mental health system is broken because we don’t have national healthcare and because republicans are all racists. If everyone took a mind-numbing drug, got therapy 23 hours a day and had a designated governmental minder to hold their hands at all times, there would be no crime at all. Additionally, no one with any sort of mental disorder should be allowed to buy a gun.” I may have paraphrased a bit but I believe I have hit all the relevant points.
I have to be honest with you, friends. This one upsets Whiggy the most. It’s the last bit. The whole concept that anyone who had a mental disorder would not be permitted to purchase a gun. Where do I start? You all know I am a former psychologist. Anyone who would suggest such a thing has no concept, whatsoever, of how mental disorders are diagnosed or treated. Let’s start with the most basic question and then move to the more worrisome concepts.
Which mental disorders would lead one to have their second amendment right taken from them? For how long would they have to suffer from it? Would they be banned for life? For how long would they have to be in recovery or symptom free before they could have their second amendment rights back? Do certain behaviors need to be associated with the diagnosis or is the diagnosis itself enough? What severity of disorder symptoms would be needed? These questions are endless and could fill volumes. One final question: when exactly did the moral aristocracy decide it was ok to discriminate against someone based on a pre-existing medical condition? BOOM! Mic drop … how you like them apples you hypocritical @sshats?!
*Pics up mic … I’m not done yet.
The aspect of this concept that most concerns me is the complete and total surrender of personal privacy to the government. For the government to deny someone’s rights based 
on a pre-existing medical condition, they must be made aware of said condition. Think about that for just a minute. This would get rid of the concept of clinical confidentiality. Your government would have to be made aware, not only of your condition, but of the details of your condition. Where does that end? What other rights could they deny you based on their assessment of your mental health. And further, how long would it be until Wikileaks publishes the notes about that dream you had of that midget riding the goat covered in chocolate toting an AR15 with a melted silencer? And there’s my title!
So, what have we learned about denying a person his/her second amendment rights due to a pre-existing medical condition? The answer is in the question.
(I know this is getting long, but it needs to be said. Go pour yourself a drink. I’ll wait. Back? Ok. Let’s continue)
Ban Assault weapons: A good friend of mine and Mrs. Whiggy has the unfortunate luck of suffering from liberalism. Before the Las Vegas shooting, he was over to our house for dinner. The conversation eventually came around to guns and the concept of an assault weapon ban. My dear intellectually-deficient friend knew his liberal talking points well.
“You don’t need a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-bullet clip to hunt deer. Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon?” He said with the smugness of Harvey Weinstein defending his Clinton BFFs.
“You are right,” I responded “I don’t need it to hunt deer. I need it to assure that anyone (citizen or government official) who enters my property with intent to hurt my family or steal my treasure does not leave my property with air in his lungs or thoughts of returning in his head.”
Silence. There was no response. There could be no response. All too often, those who defend the second amendment try to use logic based on the moral aristocracy’s code. Its time for that end. I agree with those on the left that claim that assault weapons are solely intended to kill people. YES, THEY ARE. And your point is? I do not hunt. I have no interest in hunting. I’m kind of a wuss and couldn’t imagine dealing with a dead bloody deer. Anything I may own is owned expressly to remove from the earth anyone meaning to hurt me, my family or my property. Period.
Oh … and by the way: According to the FBI, there were approximately 15,000 murders in the US in 2016. About 10,600 of those were committed using guns. Data is not available yet for 2016 but in 2014 about 70% of those guns were handguns. 2% involved rifles and assault weapons. Yes, that right. I said 2%.
And one more by the way: the constitution grants gun ownership as a right, not as a means of meeting a need and only if that need is present. Oh, and the intent was of the second amendment was to ensure that the citizenry could stay armed in case the need arises to defend against the government. So, there’s that.
So, what have we learned about an assault weapon ban? Like the whole Background Check red herring, banning assault weapons would impact approximately 2% of murders. Then there is that pesky little fact that the constitution makes gun ownership a right. A small side note: Neither health care nor education are mentioned as rights by the constitution yet gun ownership is. Interesting.
I could go on and on about other concerns such as magazine capacities, types of ammunition, types of sights, gun licensure and weapon modifications but I think I have gone on long enough.
I want to leave you with this thought: the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in the US involved a truck and tons of fertilizer and killed 168 people. Where there is a sick will, there is a sick way.