Caltrops - Peter Molyneux's The Movies





	[quote name="Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS)"]With the recent school shooting in Connecticut we're hearing more calls in the mass media for additional gun control and gun restrictions, despite that there are already thousands of laws on the books for that purpose, the only people these laws really disarm are honest people, the criminals are already ignoring the already existing gun laws and will just ignore any new ones, and long history shows that whenever they impose more restrictions on guns the number of people being subject to crime increases. Plus the inability of people to stop the government from running roughshod over their human rights when they have no means to defend themselves against armed government agents who have decided to use them for whatever purpose the government wants. A lot of the people supporting these rules won't admit that taking power from individuals and giving it to government officials is exactly what they are after. Or some people who support gun restrictions of the type that don't solve the problem are ignorantly playing into the hands of those people that I referred to in the previous sentence, who want to make people dependent upon government or more likely unable to resist government, no matter what it demands of them. But what gets me is the people who say that you don't "need" a certain type of gun for hunting, or you don't "need" an expanded magazine for sport shooting, or that you don't "need" a fully-automatic rifle for home defense, or you don't "need" more than a certain number of guns, neglecting the fact that the Second Amendment says nothing about sporting or hunting and does not put limits on the number weapons or type of weapons people can have. The nasty fact ignored by the gun grabbers remains that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to give the general public the ability to hunt, or to go sport shooting, or just to defend their homes against invaders and other criminals. The true purpose of the 2nd was to give individuals access to the same weapons the military has in order that the public has the power, if necessary, to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question is, does a 30-round magazine have a legitimate military purpose? Of course it does, which means that individuals have just as much right to have them too. A sheriff in Kentucky - who, surprisingly enough, supports his constituents having their own guns in their homes - was asked at a public meeting of some kind that was uploaded to YouTube whether it's right for individuals to have high powered ordnance, like, hand grenades. His answer was perfect: If it was necessary for home defense to have hand grenades, that's not a problem. And despite what some people think, it might be necessary to have hand grenades for home defense. If you're the only house within 5 miles that has stored food and civilized society including the food transportation system breaks down, you might very well get hordes of starving looters who want to take it from you, and perhaps the only way to keep them from getting close enough to shoot at you is to throw hand grenades (or launch them) to keep them far enough away from your property that they can't get close enough to shoot you, or where you might have to kill dozens at once because there's too many to shoot at the same time. The movie of Robert A. Heinlein's book <i>Starship Troopers</i>, hit it on the head precisely, in that in the end, the only thing you have to protect yourself is to use force, "and force, my friends, is <i>violence</i>, the Supreme Authority from which all other authority is derived." Nobody would seriously stop for police officers writing tickets if they didn't have guns plus the abiltity to call in more police if necessary to stop you if you didn't obey their authority. Nobody would pay taxes if it wasn't for the military and their guns that they have as the final answer to a refusal to pay them. And they'd never get people into prisons if they didn't have armed guards to force you there, to force you to stay, and to force you to go to prison if you refused. But then some people ask what can we do to stop school shootings. Well, first, let's stop doping up kids with unnecessary and often dangerous drugs like Ritalin that can cause them to become unbalanced and thus perhaps a danger to themselves or others. Next, we can't be putting police officers in every school, first, we can't afford all these extra police, and if someone is coming to do mayhem, the uniformed police officer or armed guard is an easily visible and obvious target. Next, we need to remove the laws that make it illegal for the teachers and other school employees who choose to do so, who are trained to know when and when not to use a firearm, to go armed, and with concealed carry it's not known if they are because any weapon they're carrying is not visible. Having teachers and administrators who are trained and choose to be armed is relatively inexpensive way to provide security. Having guns doesn't even mean you need to <i>use</i> them to stop horrible tragedies. As has been noted, a guy tried shooting up a shopping center and killed two people before a man who had a concealed carry permit pulled his revolver in an attempt to stop him. He was afraid to use his weapon in case he missed and hit an innocent bystander behind the guy, but the gunman saw the armed citizen and took his own life shortly thereafter. The armed citizen never even used his weapon, but it's rather interesting that the shooting of innocents stopped once someone armed confronted the killer. Some parents are afraid of the idea of teachers and principals - even when properly trained - having guns in school. Well, if you're afraid of a trained person who knows how to use a firearm from carrying one, then we should disarm the police too. And again, the fact remains that places which prohibit weapons tend to encourage criminals to go to those places where they can find weak, disarmed fodder for them to use for their psychopathic crime sprees. [/quote]