I find this current push for gun control very scary.

For me, the right to “keep and bare arms” is  the most important amendment in the Constitution, as it allows us to enforce the rest of our rights.

This is because as Mao Tse Tung once said, “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.”  It is the sad truth about human existence that without the ability to employ deadly force to maintain your rights, they will be taken away quickly and you will be reduced to someone at the level of a slave or worse.

In this regard, the main reason for the 2nd amendment is not to be able to protect yourself against criminals, but against the government itself!  This is why the current commotion over “assault rifles” is so critical!  See, an assault rifle such as an AK-47 or an HK516 (my personal favs) is the #1 tool for starting or stopping a revolution.  For those who think they can do nothing with an assault rifle against a tyrannical government, I would remind you that the Afghan people fought off the Russians and are now doing the same to us with nothing more than assault rifles (and RPGs to be fair).

But the truth is that many people don’t want to deal with the ugly realities of life nor take responsibility for themselves.  I’ve debated several anti-gun people on Facebook, and it always comes down to an absolute refusal to accept the realities of life on this planet.  There is no logic, and therefore no way to win a debate.  These people are inconsolable by irrefutable statistics, such as the fact that gun ownership prevents crime and violence.  These foolish day-dreamers actually believe that voting should be the people’s weapon of choice!  Since when do tyrannical dictators give a shit about your vote?  Hell, in certain African countries if you vote the wrong way they hack off an arm with a machete!  Those committing such atrocities always have their trusty AK-47s on-hand.  Hmmm…

But even if gun ownership had no positive effect on crime-prevention, in my view we should never surrender our guns because this country could easily go down the path that Bolshevist Russia once went, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  All it will take is an economic disaster – and one is very close at hand!  They’ve already built the FEMA camps, now all they need to do to round us up is to take away our guns.

“But what about those innocent schoolchildren?”

Look, if some schoolchildren need to die to ensure that this never happens, then so be it!  Those schoolchildren won’t want to live in a world where Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force” can come and pick them up for any reason.  I sure as shit don’t.

Anyway, here is that dissenting opinion from a US Judge…

“It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences …

The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people…

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” – from Judge Kozinski’s dissenting opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2003