Whats awesome is that the more we prod the troll, the less of a facade of actually being at all supportive of the 2nd amendment he becomes.
He talks highly of the rights of the vet that comes home and never wants to see another firearm again, and how we should support his right. Which we do. No one is forcing him to have a firearm. No one is forcing him to go around them. We are trusting that he is still a capable enough human being to avoid situations he finds distasteful.
But he doesnt mention the millions of veterans who have spent time in hell holes all over the world and have seen first hand the evil that is wrought when "force" and the capacity for violence is concentrated in only the hands of oppressive or evil men. These veterans who have been to areas where warlords rule with cruelty and reckless abandon on those weaker than them. The veterans who have seen just how much damage a government that claims to be "for the people" can do to a population that is defenseless. These veterans have seen warlords, chieftans, presidents, dictators prey on the weak, and have vowed to never allow that to happen to themselves or their loved ones. Veterans who have seen where "only the military needs weapons of war" has led to mass devastation and loss of life due to the monopoly on violence held by an elite few who build empires on the mass graves of their people..."for their own good".
A veteran comes home, wants to lay down his teeth forever, I wish him God speed and I understand. That >is< his right. But it is not his right to force his worldview of pacifism on those who have also seen the beast, and still want to defend themselves from it.
The firearm was the first weapon to truly put the weak and under privileged on the same footing as the strong and powerful.
ALL OTHER WEAPONS UP TO THAT TIME DISPROPORTIONATELY FAVORED THE STRONG, THE POWERFUL, THE WEALTHY.
Whether it be clubs, spears, bows, swords, lance, etc., if you were the common man/peasant, then you were doomed if you had to face an armed opponent. And many times, even an unarmed opponent.
Because the strong and the powerful/wealthy had the physical strength and the opportunity to actually wield those weapons effectively...and to train with them, as well. It takes strength and stamina to heft and swing a sword. It takes strength and skill to block, parry, ripost. It takes strong muscles to not only draw a powerful long range bow, but to do so repeatedly.
The bow is a distance weapon, right? Well...distance limited by the strength of the bowman, who must be strong enough to draw a powerful bow capable of outreaching your enemy. And while a bow could be wielded effectively as a hunting tool for animals, it's another matter entirely against a bowman with a weapon designed to an enemy at great distances...who also have the ability to shoot back.
Ballista and cannon weapons were not the kind of weapons the common man could effectively wield, either. They were expensive to make in both time and resources, weren't very portable, and again...the rich and powerful had the advantage with these weapons.
But the rifle and sidearm? It didn't matter who used them, their range and ballistics effectiveness were equal, whether in the hands of the King's men or the country peasant. As a weapon, this was the Great Equalizer, giving the common man the same power to reach out and kill the strong and powerful as they had. Here the hunter's skill placed the ability to kill on an equal footing, with the common man only lacking in the tactics training of the strong/powerful. Thieves and bandits could more effectively be countered.
Not to mention making it easier to put meat on the table, thereby improving their nutritional diet with all the benefits that implies.
But man is a cunning creature, and where the strong and powerful may have the edge many ways, with equal weapons the common man now had the incentive to develop and utilize their own tactics...even obtaining that training in service of the very oppressors over him, in fact.
Once firearms technology was out, the balance of power between the strong and powerful now shifted to a more even footing.
And mankind has been the better for it ever since.
GUN CONTROL:
With that historical perspective in mind, it becomes even more clear what "gun control" really means...it's a strategic play by those in power to shift the balance of power back towards them. And they will HAPPILY use any means to convince the common man that "this is for their own benefit".
Shifting the balance of power AWAY from the common man is NEVER a good idea.
