The Law of Unintended Consequences

[joelrod47 373]

Found this on BayouShooter Forum.........

It's a response to an editorial about 2nd Amendment proponents.................

Jeaux

 

 

 

 

TO: Tom Eblen, a Kentuckian who ought to know better.

 

Dear Tom,

 

Let me introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

Sez you:

 

"If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it."

 

Ah, the big, bad gun "confiscation" boogeyman.

 

It may scare you. It may scare certain weak-kneed "sportsmen" willing to compromise our rights for theirs. And, perhaps, it may scare some poorly educated children under the age of twelve.

 

It does NOT scare us, the intended target of your editorial missive. The way we see it, "eventually somebody's going to TRY to do it." Liberals' biggest problem (and perhaps yours as well) is that they're always extrapolating from their own cowardice. They think that if the government told them to do something, they would do it, so everybody else will too.

 

Wrong.

 

Let's boil down the threat of gun confiscation to its mathematical essence:

 

1. There are as many guns in this country as there are people, something close to 300 million.

 

2. No matter what law you pass, some percentage of American gun owners will refuse to give theirs up, even if the penalty for doing so is death. Shall we say 3 percent of 100 million gun owners? That's the same percentage as active combatants in our first Revolution, so let's say that's 3 million "pry it from my cold dead hands" types.

 

3. Now, I'm sure you will agree (intellectually at least) that a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is most often somebody who is willing to kill for them too. This being the case . . .

 

4. When the government comes to take these citizens' guns, the citizens -- these 3 percenters -- will do their dead level best to kill the thugs sent to do so. Some of them will realize that killing the bureaucrats who sent the thugs is probably a good idea too, so a number of bureaucrats will die. Some of these citizens will also realize the justice of killing the tyrant politicians who told the bureaucrats to send the thugs, and that's even more dead added to the butcher's bill.

 

On a more personal note, an even smaller (yet still significant) percentage of these citizens will remember that Bill Clinton expanded the laws of warfare in the 90's to include the news media of your enemy as a legitimate target of war, so a number of reporters, editorial writers (uh, what did you say you do for a living?), anti-gun bloggers, and perceived "traitors to the Republic" will die as well, even if (as I'm sure it is in your case) they don't deserve it. I mean, I'd never shoot an editorial writer myself, I have too much love for the 1st Amendment. However, there are others out there who doubtless lack my scruples, especially when they're being shot at themselves. And since Bubba Bill already said it was OK, they'll think, "Hey, why not?"

 

All told, gunnies and gun grabbers, the casualties will be at least in the low millions making it the worst war America has ever fought -- indeed, the dead would total more than all of America's wars combined. This is especially true since we "cold dead hands types" intend to make it more than a one-to-one ratio. And, you may remember, we're the ones with the firearms already at hand and the ones more likely to know how to use them effectively.

 

5. Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights. It can't be done. You can't convince us, you can't intimidate us and we're not going away. You can kill us, but you can't change our minds. Thus, stacking up millions of dead bodies in your proposed civil war seems an odd way to ensure "public safety," especially if one of those bodies is unintentionally yours. Is this really what you had in mind?

 

Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

Sometimes, my young editorialist, there IS no principled middle ground and to stand there is to invite being shot at by both sides with equal gusto -- and I don't mean by mere words and phrases.

 

Thus endeth the lesson. I hope now that I've explained things in the light of day that you'll recover soon from your silly fright at the big, bad, bogus boogeyman of gun confiscation.

 

Because it ain't happenin' - not without the worst bloody fight you can possibly imagine.

 

Have a nice day. ;-)

[Reverendfranz 160]

thats Mike Vanderboegh.

 

google his name for much much more in the same vein. Its hard to keep up with all the man writes.

 

his story Window War is a classic.

 

http://www.yauponcreek.org/GunControl/WindowWar.html

[Kwicko 8]

Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights.

 

While I enjoy and believe in the protections that are guaranteed by our Constitution, nowhere in the document are such rights listed as "God-given". And I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to own guns listed in the Bible, either, since they hadn't been invented yet.

 

What makes the United States Constitution all the more remarkable is that it is a document of rights given to Man, by men, without any need of approval by any God or church.

 

Still, good story.

[headshot 52]

Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights.

 

While I enjoy and believe in the protections that are guaranteed by our Constitution, nowhere in the document are such rights listed as "God-given". And I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to own guns listed in the Bible, either, since they hadn't been invented yet.

 

What makes the United States Constitution all the more remarkable is that it is a document of rights given to Man, by men, without any need of approval by any God or church.

 

Still, good story.

 

 

Then refer to it as a Natural Right. We are not granted these rights by any document, however there is a document that does enumerate these rights.

[Reverendfranz 160]

Philosophically, all Rights are Inherent, or "God-Given"

 

The only thing men can give is privileges. This difference is subtle, but important.

 

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant men anything, but to forbid government from infringing on what is deemed universal and just.

[RangerM9 1]

I like it!......

 

and really if it did start to happen there would first be hoarding and hiding, followed by civil war, after a few hundred or thousand were killed defending their 2ns amendment rights, i think the nation as a whole fracture down party lines and "game on". I think in the end the party with the most weapons will win....

 

not exactly a happy thought.....lets hope we never get to that point.

[Kwicko 8]

We are not granted these rights by any document, however there is a document that does enumerate these rights.

 

... Which has the effect of granting us those rights, and forbids our government from taking them away, in a document written by men who fought long and hard to wrest those very rights from another government. The Constitution is a singularly unique document in the history of the world. Never before had such rights been written into the very document that established a nation.

 

I wouldn't say that gun ownership is a "Natural Right" either, since guns aren't exactly natural, but rather man-made.

[Koliadko 207]

I'm reading a book now by William W Johnstone. If any of you enjoy reading novels, I highly recommend him. I'm reading the second in the 'Ashes' series. Part of it deals with the government's attempts to take all guns away. Just to give you a little hint, it kinda goes like the OP. It just ain't gonna happen. I know it's a novel, but I also believe it's the truth.

[Agias 0]

You guys are getting out of hand... if i was your government and you started doing that i'd totally send the army on your butts.

 

But then again if i was your government i wouldn't want to take away your guns. BUT whoever would kill other human beings just to be able to keep his guns should be thrown into a deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs. If you're serious about that you're downright crazy and a danger to society.

[Koliadko 207]

Dude, I wouldn't kill someone to keep my guns. I'd do it in a heartbeat to keep my God given rights. Pardon me. My 'Creator' given rights.

[Agias 0]

Show me evidence that god wants you to have guns

[Koliadko 207]

Don't you want evidence that God exists first? I know He does because He makes idiots to help my aim. I'm so much more accurate when I picture an idiot in the cans I shoot.

[Agias 0]

No, i don't want evidence of that - i don't publicly question other people's religion. It's their business. And you just called me an idiot because i'm not willing to kill people to save my guns. Well done.

[Gunfixr 76]

I don't know that I would kill anybody JUST to keep my guns, but the issue goes somewhat deeper than that. The whole reason for the government to come take all our guns away is to exert their total control afterwards, taking all of our personal freedoms away, and essentially enslave us. At that point, they could even pick out groups as undesirable and massacre them. For evidence of any of this, just read your world history.

 

So, while I won't necessarily kill someone just to keep any specific material item(s), I will certainly kill as many as necessary to insure my, and my familys, freedoms. My firearms are the only way to insure those freedoms stay around, they certainly aren't going to respond to harsh language and threats or pleading once they are the ones with all the weapons.

 

If or when they come for yours, you will have to decide what you will do. I will decide what I will do.

 

I will say this. I would rather my children/grandchildren stand over my grave and talk about how I died so they could live free, than be asked by them why I didn't do anything when I had the chance, and now they have none of the freedoms that I enjoyed.

[Koliadko 207]

No, i don't want evidence of that - i don't publicly question other people's religion. It's their business. And you just called me an idiot because i'm not willing to kill people to save my guns. Well done.

 

 

I didn't call you an idiot. I said I picture an idiot. Personally I had other people in mind. But if the shoe fits......

[Agias 0]

You want to fight for your rights. Alright, fight for them! Don't end up like the UK!

But if you're fighting use your brain! What do you think you achieve by threatening the anti-gun guys like this? You're actually helping them! They're trying to prove that pro-gun people are a danger to society. And instead of trying to prove the oppossite what do you do? Act exactly how they want you to.

 

Why not let the general public know YOUR point of view? Organize public events! Show them you're not murderers! But definitely don't threaten to kill them, for christs sakes. (and definitely dont blame it on god)

Edited June 2, 2008 by Agias

[mordecai 1]

[Koliadko 207]

[Kwicko 8]

It's a nice quote from the Declaration of Independence, but that is a completely separate document from the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration lays out the reasons for the various States declaring their independence from British rule. The Constitution lays out how those States would band together to form a Nation, and nowhere in it does it mention any god, creator, or god-given rights. It lays out, or enumerates, those rights which the government WILL NOT infringe. Just so you know, you're arguing two completely different documents.

 

Also, just so you know, I'm on your side. I stand by the Second Amendment as it was written.

[mordecai 1]

It's a nice quote from the Declaration of Independence, but that is a completely separate document from the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration lays out the reasons for the various States declaring their independence from British rule. The Constitution lays out how those States would band together to form a Nation, and nowhere in it does it mention any god, creator, or god-given rights. It lays out, or enumerates, those rights which the government WILL NOT infringe. Just so you know, you're arguing two completely different documents.

 

Also, just so you know, I'm on your side. I stand by the Second Amendment as it was written.

 

 

Really? They're different documents? They're not the same document? I'll bet they were not written by the same peoples, in the same time, for the same reasons either. I'll bet one has nothing to do with the other, does it? I suspect when the DOI was adopted in 1776, the Revolutionary War was subsequently fought, and the Constitution was ratified in 1787 by the States, it does nothing but demonstrate an unassociated chain of events leading to "completely separate documents".

 

Good grief... Yes, the Constitution as written remains neutral about deities, and besides being a principal reason for leaving Britain, the 1st Amendment specifically outlines no state religion. But to historically ignore the reasons behind the Natural Law's individual-rights movement of the time in exchange for trying to analyze the Constitution in a vacuum is painful to watch, at best.

[Gunfixr 76]

I have never claimed to be a really well versed person when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but when I was in school, we learned that they went hand in hand as seperate, but working together documents. The Constitution set up how the governmnet was to operate, and the Bill of Rights outlined the basics of where the government was not to tread.

 

Always seemed pretty clear to me. You (government) touch these areas, we (the people) replace you, by whatever means become necessary. If voting works, great. If not, then force is open as the last option.

 

Nitpicking the details doesn't change the overall picture.

[jhereg 0]

You guys are getting out of hand... if i was your government and you started doing that i'd totally send the army on your butts.

 

But then again if i was your government i wouldn't want to take away your guns. BUT whoever would kill other human beings just to be able to keep his guns should be thrown into a deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs. If you're serious about that you're downright crazy and a danger to society.

 

 

It's not about keeping the guns. It's about keeping your freedom. Our first Amendment to our Constitution recognizes our right to freedom of speech. Our 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd protects the first. A lot of us look at it as a doomsday amendment. By it's very existence it keeps the politicians honest, but if things get completely out of hand it gives us a reset button.

 

Molon Labe

[Kwicko 8]

Really? They're different documents? They're not the same document?

 

Good grief... Yes, the Constitution as written remains neutral about deities, and besides being a principal reason for leaving Britain, the 1st Amendment specifically outlines no state religion. But to historically ignore the reasons behind the Natural Law's individual-rights movement of the time in exchange for trying to analyze the Constitution in a vacuum is painful to watch, at best.

 

Okay, *I* said that there were no "god-given" or "natural" rights listed in the US Constitution. Period. There are rights that men gave to other men, rights won by hard-fought battles and spilled blood, but there are no rights in the document that the Framers would call "god-given". In response, *YOU* quoted back at me from the intro to the Declaration of Independence, a document written some 12 years earlier, before a bloody and long war, and written largely by one man (Thomas Jefferson), not a group. THAT document lists certain "unalienable" rights that are endowed with by their creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't say a single thing about the pursuit of guns in there.

 

To equate one with the other, or to *guess* at what the Framers meant in the Constitution, is to invite disaster such as you claim to want to avoid.

 

I still maintain, and you said anything to dissuade me, that the right to keep and bear arms is not a god-given right, not a right endowed to us by any creator, and not a natural right. Rather, it is a right fought for and won by hard men willing to do battle to take it from a King and give it to the People.

[Agias 0]

You guys are getting out of hand... if i was your government and you started doing that i'd totally send the army on your butts.

 

But then again if i was your government i wouldn't want to take away your guns. BUT whoever would kill other human beings just to be able to keep his guns should be thrown into a deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs. If you're serious about that you're downright crazy and a danger to society.

 

 

It's not about keeping the guns. It's about keeping your freedom. Our first Amendment to our Constitution recognizes our right to freedom of speech. Our 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd protects the first. A lot of us look at it as a doomsday amendment. By it's very existence it keeps the politicians honest, but if things get completely out of hand it gives us a reset button.

 

Molon Labe

Your freedom. And how about the freedom of your fellow countrymen you would kill? The freedom of their families you would take them from?

 

I still maintain, and you said anything to dissuade me, that the right to keep and bear arms is not a god-given right, not a right endowed to us by any creator, and not a natural right. Rather, it is a right fought for and won by hard men willing to do battle to take it from a King and give it to the People.

That's what i was trying to get to at one point, keep god out of what he isnt involved in.

 

 

And lastly, i didn't get any reply to this post of mine:

You want to fight for your rights. Alright, fight for them! Don't end up like the UK!

But if you're fighting use your brain! What do you think you achieve by threatening the anti-gun guys like this? You're actually helping them! They're trying to prove that pro-gun people are a danger to society. And instead of trying to prove the oppossite what do you do? Act exactly how they want you to.

 

Why not let the general public know YOUR point of view? Organize public events! Show them you're not murderers! But definitely don't threaten to kill them, for christs sakes. (and definitely dont blame it on god)

How about you consider it?

Edited June 2, 2008 by Agias

[RangerM9 1]

why don't we just say that the right to bear arms pre-existed the DoI and the Constitution, it existed in caveman times since we first learned to make tools and weapons, they were for hunting and defense from predators, whether they be 4 legged or 2 legged matters not.....no longer do we worry about the sabertooth tiger, but the strung out crack head is probably even worse.

 

IT pre-existed this government and that right was protected in the development of our nation. Taking away such a right is no different than taking away the right to free speech...it is fundamental to who we are. It does not demand that all be armed, it simply allows those who wish to be, with some limitations.....most of which are think are sensible....

 

I'm of that camp that think Full auto may be a tad too much for the average citizen, and far too much in the hands of gang members. Licenses for full auto are fine, but should be a tad less pricey....

[jhereg 0]

You guys are getting out of hand... if i was your government and you started doing that i'd totally send the army on your butts.

 

But then again if i was your government i wouldn't want to take away your guns. BUT whoever would kill other human beings just to be able to keep his guns should be thrown into a deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs. If you're serious about that you're downright crazy and a danger to society.

 

 

It's not about keeping the guns. It's about keeping your freedom. Our first Amendment to our Constitution recognizes our right to freedom of speech. Our 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd protects the first. A lot of us look at it as a doomsday amendment. By it's very existence it keeps the politicians honest, but if things get completely out of hand it gives us a reset button.

 

Molon Labe

Your freedom. And how about the freedom of your fellow countrymen you would kill? The freedom of their families you would take them from?

F' em. If they are kicking doors & taking guns they deserve every bullet they get. We have a right to Keep & Bear Arms. The government doesn't have the authority to take them. Any order to confiscate them would be illegal and unconstitutional. The police & military have a duty to *not* obey an unconstitutional order. If you physically threaten me or mine you have gone from being another citizen I feel the duty to help protect & have become a threat to be stopped. (Notice I said "stopped", not killed.)

 

They have the same right to be free as I do, but they don't have the right "not to have their poor feelings hurt by the evil guns." I haven't been in a fight in 25+ years. I defuse situations when possible instead of making them worse, but my guns protect my family. Anyone who thinks they are going to "take" my guns in the furtherence of the goal of making us "safe," had better be willing to get the consumeables first. I think this guy says it better than me.

 

---------------------------

"When you come for my guns"

by Larry Simoneaux

 

I guess I'm just tired of it all.

 

Tired of the bogus definitions (see: "assault weapons" or "assault rifles") and the slanted or just plain false statistics constantly being quoted.

 

Tired of the skewed reporting and glaring omissions in "news" stories.

 

Bet you didn't know that, in the Appalachian Law School shooting of several years ago, the incident ended when two students got their guns and subdued the killer without firing a shot.

 

If you missed it, it's not your fault. You see, in more than 200 reports, that little factoid was "conveniently" left out.

 

I'm tired of gun owners being portrayed as ignorant, gap-toothed simpletons whose only source of amusement is shooting anything that moves.

 

I'd be willing to stand a cross-section of gun owners up against any of the anti-gun crowd and bet hard money on where the IQ pool would be deepest. You see, I've sat around too many campfires listening to doctors, judges, airline pilots, ship captains, teachers, and just plain hard working people talk. Most of those times, I decided to keep my mouth shut in order not to lower the level of discussion.

 

I'm tired of being told that the Constitution guarantees such things as abortions (although such is nowhere mentioned) but does not recognize an individual's right to "keep and bear" arms - even though those words can be read by any and all who care to do so.

 

I'm tired of hearing that we need just one more "reasonable gun law" when there are already thousands on the books that seem to be studiously ignored.

 

I'm tired of finding that most - if not all - of such proposed laws are nothing more than dishonest attempts aimed at the eventual confiscation of all firearms.

 

I'm tired of bringing reasoned and well-researched arguments to discussions of this topic only to be ignored or treated with polite contempt.

 

I'm tired of being told that I should take moral guidance on this issue from the likes of - let's say - Ted Kennedy and others of his ilk. Sorry, I'll have to check with Mary Jo Kopechne and get back to you on that one.

 

I'm tired of seeing concrete and obvious examples ignored.

 

Washington, D.C. and New York City have some of the toughest gun laws on the books. Their crime rates have been repeatedly shown to be (guess which) higher/lower than cities wherein gun ownership is less restricted.

 

I'm tired of being told that guns are the problem when, on any given day, I can turn on the news and hear about the latest atrocity we - as a society - have suffered. Therein, I inevitably find that: (1) it's been perpetrated by some useless accretion of carbon with a "rap" sheet thicker than a telephone directory; and (2) said individual was still on the street because of a justice system that's become more "system" than justice.

 

I'm a father, a former little league coach, an honorably discharged veteran, and a past president of the local PTA. I've been married to the same woman for 33 years. I've never been arrested and my last run-in with the law was a speeding ticket back in the mid-70's.

 

I vote in every election. I give blood regularly. I have a degree in English Literature and another in Marine Biology. I spent a year in a Benedictine monastery studying to be a priest. However - because I choose to own firearms - to the major networks, liberal politicians everywhere, and the likes of Sarah Brady, I'm nothing more than a "gun nut."

 

I hear there's going to be another "Million(?)Mom March" in Washington, D.C. in May.

 

I've already prepared myself for the fawning coverage it will receive.

 

I've already accepted that there's not going to be a balanced presentation of the other side of the argument.

 

I'm tired of that too.

 

And so, I've finally reached the point where I've decided I will no longer be "reasonable" while the other side has never, does not now, nor will ever accord me the same courtesy.

 

Even though this piece will never see the light of day in any major publication, I have a message for the anti-gun zealots out there. It's from someone who's perfectly normal and is basically your next door neighbor.

 

There used to be a bumper sticker that said: "You'll get my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from the trigger."

 

You made fun of it and derided those who believed in the spirit of the idea it propounded.

 

Unfortunately, it's not much seen any more and I've been unable to find one for my own use.

 

For that reason, I've designed one of my own.

 

It says: "When you come for my guns, bring yours. You'll be needing them."

 

I think it speaks for itself.

[Agias 0]

That's all nice, but i still believe threatening with murder is not the way out. As i said, you should try and let people know YOUR point of view, instead of proving the anti-gun party's claims. If that fails... have fun killing people. But at least try to settle it peacefully before you do that.

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

Any update on the Supreme Court hearing of the D.C. case?

[jhereg 0]

That's all nice, but i still believe threatening with murder is not the way out. As i said, you should try and let people know YOUR point of view, instead of proving the anti-gun party's claims. If that fails... have fun killing people. But at least try to settle it peacefully before you do that.

 

It's not threatening murder to tell people bad things will happen if they push people too far. Especially if you are only predicting bad things. It's important to let your opponents know there is a line past which you cannot be pushed. It is critically important when you are dealing w/ people who do not comprehend that there is a point past which people cannot be pushed. We are dealing w/ people who do not believe there is anything worth fighting for. They don't believe there is anything for killing for, or dying for. At least on an individual basis. They generally think it's ok to send a man w/ a gun to enforce their laws since that's generic violence done at the hand of the state. Their hands are clean.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

Show me evidence that god wants you to have guns

 

Okay

 

Luke 22:35-36

35And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." 36He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.