|
Following January 6th, 2021, many people, groups, media outlets, and companies have classified the speech [source 1] given by President Trump at the Save America Rally as “hate speech” and/or labeled it as rhetoric or a “call to action” which incited violence that led to the breach of the Capitol. I have listened to and read the transcript (at the same time) of the President’s speech from that day. I have done this twice just to make sure I did not overlook anything the first time. There was nothing in that speech that I heard or read that would lead a rational person to assume the use of violence was the message. It is my opinion that if someone or a group of people were “compelled” to use violence or went there with the specific intent to create chaos, that idea or action was a forethought before the day or event even started. Something else to consider is, there is a probability that some or most of the people who used violence that day may not have been present during the speech as it was held near the White House, which is approximately 2 miles away (+/- depending on the route). The speech however did contain information with supporting figures on how President Trump believes the election, which was conducted on November 3rd, 2020, was filled with fraud and/or had fraudulent elements that ultimately lead to his victory being stolen from him. The election itself is a whole other topic, but President Trump, along with many millions of Americans believe there was an element of fraud present within the election process. Even though some media outlets and other people have stated “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election” that statement in and of itself recognizes that there was some fraud, just not widespread or maybe not enough to change the outcome of the election. Therefore, the accusations of the President’s “baseless” claims of voter fraud are not necessarily baseless since there is recognition of some type of fraud (maybe not widespread) by media outlets, Department of Justice, and other people. Bottom line, him (President Trump) or anyone else are free to believe and discuss this openly or in private as it does not violate the 1st Amendment, just as those who do not believe this are free to do the same. I brought all that up because some people, along with some media outlets suggest that it was the “baseless” claims of voter fraud that fueled the violence there at the Capital. Since it is widely accepted by so many people that there was some voter fraud (maybe not widespread) associated with the 2020 elections, it is reasonable to assume that that information alone, whether on a large scale or a small scale, would not be enough to incite violence. I have heard or seen some people suggest that a “call to action” or “use of violence” was inferred or implied by the President. Based on his mannerisms, along with his vocal tones/inflections, and certain words that were or were not used, I simply do not see where, how, or why a levelheaded person would suggest that the use of violence was inferred or implied. Typically, when an individual or individuals are attempting to rile up a crowd or group for the specific purpose of carrying out certain tasks or actions, they use intentional verbiage with the hope of creating an emotional response. Commonly, that verbiage will have elements of the desired task or action within it. For instance, if I wanted to encourage a group of people to destroy something and I had their undivided attention, I would use words associated with or closely related to my desired actions, which would be destruction. If I wanted that group to successfully carry out the action of destruction, it would not be in my best interest to use words that would promote something opposite of that. For instance, peace or peacefully. Words like that would be counterproductive. Lastly, if I really wanted to sell this, I need to put on a show. I have to be very emotionally charged, I have to be loud, my actions need to be quick (possibly somewhat violent), they have to see that I am just as upset (or whatever other emotion) as they are. They need to know that I will be there with them leading the charge and taking part in the destruction. Of course, just like anything, that is not always the case. Sometimes people can get a crowd going with the energy of an old shoe, but even then, there is still specific verbiage used. Understanding that, I went through the transcript looking for specific verbiage that would be needed or at a very minimum, make sense to use that would help rile up a crowd or incite a riot. The list of words directly below this sentence were not mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
The following words were mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech, but they are used in such a way that the context is not applicable to “a call to action” or “a call for violence”:
The following word was mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
My ConclusionAgain, after going through this information repeatedly, I cannot see how a rational person could take such a negative connotation away from this, even if they do not like or support President Trump. In my opinion, specific to this speech, you do not have to like or support someone to be honest about a situation. I find it very difficult to believe this speech was the motivation for the violence at the Capitol. I also do not believe that this speech justified the actions of some organizations to sensor the President, but that too is another topic. My main focus here was the speech and whether or not the President should be held solely accountable for the actions of some based on the words here and in my opinion, no. I think linking cause-and-effect here is a stretch and a bias one at that. Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Sources 1. President Trump's Save America Rally Speech: CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE
2 Comments
On December 14, 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden stated, “gun violence is a national health crisis”. This was part of a larger statement (full statement available at the bottom of this article) released by him in reference to the shooting that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. What happened there that day was a tragedy. Senseless acts of violence cannot be justified, and it is always sad and frustrating when it happens, especially when the lives of children are taken. Without a doubt, the events that took place there were and still are emotional, and it is important for us to remember the incident, celebrate the lives of those who were killed, and condemn the evil person who inflicted so much pain, suffering, and death on so many people. I am grateful that Joe Biden brought back to memory the people who were hurt and injured, along with the families and communities impacted by this shooting. It was also great that he did this on the eighth anniversary of the shooting so that people could pause and remembers all of those effected by this heinous act. That is where my positivity towards Joe Biden ends. Since there is no real mention of people or celebrations of life for those who were lost, just more “calls for action”, I cannot help but think this whole statement might have more of an agenda than sincere words of comfort. I know, there is a very high probability Joe Biden did not or does not know all, most, some, or any of the people who were affected by this, therefore it is difficult for him to deliver a very personal message. Having said that, it is my opinion that he (Joe Biden) or someone within his team or affiliated with him or whomever penned the words in this statement did so to capitalize on emotions to further push their ani-gun rhetoric. Again, this is just my opinion. I have formed this opinion based on past experience of politicians and other people highlighting or pushing certain topics using emotions and feelings to fuel the movement of their particular agenda. Some additional factors that influenced my opinion about this were, but not limited to:
Is gun violence a national heath crisis? Depending on how you play with the definition it might be, but in my opinion, it is not, unless people are ready to reclassify many more types of death as a national health crisis. Let us take a look at some numbers and see how deaths caused by guns compare to other deaths. Before doing that, it is important to remember, this cannot be a true “apples-to-apples” comparison because the only consistent factor within these comparisons is death, not situations, not cause of death, not the emotional mindset of the person at the time of death, ect. The numbers are approximations and some of the numbers are from different years, as those were more readily available and/or had more complete data associated with the numbers. Please do not just take my word for it though, look at the numbers for yourself. Reference links to sources used for these numbers can be found at the bottom of this article. Some of these links provide additional context for deaths and explanations for factors included in some of these numbers. Deaths:
With most of the above-mentioned deaths totals, there are other numbers and considerations to take into account for better context. For instance, out of the 39,523 deaths caused by guns [source 1], approximately 24,090 of those were suicides. So approximately 60.9% (24,090) of that “gun violence” figure has deaths associated with it, even though a large percentage of those same people would have probably still taken their own life using another method if they did not have access to a gun. Point being, the gun was not necessarily the only reason or the only factor as to why someone died, it was just a method used by someone who already wanted to die. It is safe to assume that comparing gun deaths (39,523) to motor vehicle deaths (38,800) [source 2], suicide would have a much lower consumption of percentage of the overall motor vehicle death number. I would not necessarily classify suicide by means of a gun (handgun, shotgun, or rifle) as “gun violence”. The end result is violent due to the force of impact and often times exit of the bullet, but no more so than suicide through the means of one jumping off of a building/bridge, or by laying down in front of a train. If we are going to classify suicide by gun as “gun violence”, then it is only fair to classify suicide by jumping from a building as “falling violence” or suicide by train as “train violence”. To break the “gun violence” numbers down even further, after factoring in the suicide numbers, you are left with approximately 15,433 deaths caused by guns. Within these numbers are murders/homicides (which would account for approximately 66.47% of the overall 15,433 number), but you also have accidental/unintentional shootings and defensive use shootings, along with other categories. Approximately 33.5% (5,175) of the remaining 15,433 deaths caused by guns were of an accidental/unintentional and defensive use nature, along with other categories, leaving approximately 10,258 deaths caused by guns that are classified as murder/homicide [source 5]. To me, this is a more accurate representation of the true “gun violence” term used. So Approximately 25.95% of the overall 39,523 death caused by guns in 2019 were used to commit murder/homicide. Another way of saying it is, out of the 39,523 deaths caused by “gun violence” in 2019, only about 10,258 (25.95%) of those were what could really be classified as “gun violence”. It should be noted, a substantial amount of the approximately 10,258 murders/homicides would involve gang shootings. Certainly, and unfortunately, innocent people are killed due to gang related shootings, but this is also something that needs to be considered when looking at “gun violence”. Chances are that these gang members were going to commit murder with or without a gun. In 2019, the approximate population within the United States was 328.2 million people [source 11]. Murder/homicide deaths by gun were 10,258 people. That is approximately .003126% of the population. I’ll give Joe Biden and others the benefit of the doubt here and lump all deaths by guns into that “gun violence” term. Doing that, the 39,523 deaths by gun were approximately .01204% of the population. If a .01204% of the United States population’s death (39,523) is caused by guns and that then therefore is classified as a national health crisis, then it is only fair to clarify the deaths (38,800) caused by motor vehicles as a national health crisis because it killed .01182% of the United States population last year too, unless Joe Biden's label of “national health crises” only applies to deaths that are above .01200% of the nation’s population. This is what I meant at the beginning of this article when I stated, “unless people are ready to reclassify many more types of death as a national health crisis.” It is all or none Joe, you cannot just pick and choose topics and throw attention grabbing labels on them because it furthers your anti-gun agenda when there are many other things that have similar or higher deaths associated with them that you let slide. I know, “gun violence” does not necessarily apply to just deaths, it also applies to injuries as well, but if “gun violence” is a national health crisis because so many people are being hurt and killed by guns, then maybe we should have a call for action against motor vehicles too because in 2019 it is estimated that approximately 4.4 million people needed medical attention due to motor vehicle crashes [source 9]. 4.4 million people injured on top of another 38,800 people killed seems like a large number for “motor vehicle violence”. At the time of writing this article, I could not find definitive data showing the approximate number of people injured in 2019 due to guns, but there were several articles and/or figures that gave an estimated yearly average. These numbers ranged from approximately 85,000 people to 115,000 people a year. These numbers include injuries and deaths from guns. [source 10] It seems like people who are hurt and/or die from guns is far less than those who are hurt and/or die from motor vehicle crashes/incidents and other causes of injury and/or death. It also seems that many other categories have large death rates associated with them but have not received the Joe Biden label of “national health crises”. My ConclusionThe data does not support his claim that “gun violence is a national health crisis”. Joe Biden is using attention grabbing verbiage on the heels of a pandemic and other emotional situations to spue false information about guns in an attempt to restrict our Second Amendment rights. It is my opinion that he is not “protecting people from gun violence” out of the kindness of his heart. It is also my opinion that the majority of these politicians who seek to impose even more restrictions when it comes to gun laws do not have the best interest of people at mind. Their goal is to disarm Americans and the data would support that clam. If gun laws worked so well to save lives, then in these large cities where they have very strict gun laws, they would have little to no “gun violence”, but it is actually the larger cities with the most restrictive gun laws that tend to have the highest amount of “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” is thrown around by politicians and ani-gun people, groups, and/or organizations because it is a very captivating title and at first glance of the numbers, they appear to be accurate. Once you get past the “feelings and emotions” of it all and logically examine the data, it becomes obvious why those same anti-gun people want all gun related deaths lumped together. Because the real “gun violence” numbers are much smaller and would not garner as much attention and create as much emotion, thus not furthering their agenda. One of the easiest ways for anti-gun politicians to further infringe on our constitutional right to keep and bear Arms is for them to convince people that it is too dangerous for us to continue to have this right. The Second Amendment is our (the peoples) means of protecting all of our other rights guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution. Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Sources
Written Statement Release by Joe Biden
Administrative Note: For the purpose of this article, when we use the word “rifle” it will be used to define or relate to any AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, AK-47 or other similar style rifle or rifles, or other rifles that have the same or similar characteristics as those or others previously mentioned. We are not referring to bolt action rifles or others that are commonly referred to or used as hunting rifles. For many years certain people, groups, and politicians have made it very clear that the American people should not have the ability or continued right to possess a gun of any type for any reason (target shooting, sport shooting, hunting, defensive use, heirloom, etc.). That is a hard sell to most of Americans as it is estimated that there are more than 393 million guns owned by civilians [source 1]. It is also estimated that approximately 32% of adults in the United States personally own a gun(s) and approximately 44% of people state they live in a household where a gun is present [source 2]. If you want to have a higher probability of getting rid of something, especially a right, you need to start your fight with the smallest part. Meaning, an easier sell to most Americans, even some gun owners, is the abolition of rifle ownership by civilians. One of the reasons this is an “easier” sell by legislators or anti-gun advocacy people and/or groups is because there are far less rifle owners in the United States than there are other guns. Estimates vary on how many rifles there are in the United States, but 5 million to 15 million seems like the average approximation [source 3]. Therefore, it is easier to target those owners because they (anti-gun people/groups) know they have a higher possibility of getting more support behind it, even from some gun owners who do not own a rifle or rifles. The reason some gun owners would be on board with it is because they have the mindset of, “I do not own one, or want one, or need one, therefor no one else would/should either.” Looks and perception does matter when dealing with rifles and the anti-gun people/groups take full advantage of that. At a quick glance or to someone who does not understand the AR-15 type rifle or other rifles, it would appear that the AR-15 type rifle or other rifles are far more dangerous than a handgun or a shotgun. It would also appear that AR-15 style rifles or other rifles would account for most of the gun deaths in America because of how “scary” they are, because they are “weapons of war”, or because of the misinformation (whether intentional or unintentional) associated with them. They (anti-gun people/groups) also use impressionable terms or carefully crafted verbiage that make it very difficult for some or most people to oppose and still sound like a "good person". Some of these terms are, but not limited to: "common sense gun control", "gun violence is a national health crisis", "guns serve no purpose in a civilized society", "weapons of war", "you do not need a gun, that is what the police are for", and "the majority of Americans, including gun owners would agree (insert blanket statement)". These statements or others like them are also used as a way to virtue signal. The principle there is simple, "if you support guns, you support death and therefore, you are a horrible person". To pro-gun people/groups who have the knowledge and experience and who also understand the purpose and application of rifles, along with all guns, these terms are nothing more than a hurdle to overcome while articulating rational talking points that serve a factual purpose. To pro-gun people/groups who cannot articulate their point or opinion, typically these "feel good" anti-gun statements silence them. A lot of ani-gun people/groups know that, which is why they use them so often. The fact of the matter here is, a lot of the people and/or groups pushing for more regulations with or complete abolition of rifles do not understand or have a working knowledge of that weapon. This is made evident in some of their absorbed and often times irrational subject comparisons or claims. Case in point 1: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee – 2019: [source 4] (partial statement) “I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I had it. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street,” I did not know that “boxes that you might be moving” (regardless of contents or size) is a unit of measurement, but I am glad to see that it is used by an individual, more specifically, a Representative who references that while attempting to restrict the Second Amendment right of the American people. To further show her ignorance on this topic, she stated, “the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber”, but that is not the most commonly used caliber within the AR platform. An AR-15 is typically chambered in .223 or .556 or both, which is much smaller than a .50-caliber. In full disclosure, there are some AR platforms that are chambered in .50-caliber, but I do not believe she was specifically and discriminately talking about those. Case in point 2: California State Sen. Kevin de Leon – 2014: [source 5] “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” There is no doubt that he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Unfortunately, this was during a press conference and since he is an elected leader, people look to him for proper information and context. It is safe to say, none of that happened with his statement. What did happen was misinformation and implementation of fear. I do not think it was necessarily intentional. I think he was overwhelmed by something he did not know much about (the rifle) and he appeared to be a little nervous. To be fair to them, I know they are not a subject matter expert (S.M.E.) on the AR-15 or other guns, so presenting or stating incorrect information and/or data is somewhat expected and to a certain extent, understood. However, if you are attempting to restrict a right of the American people which is protected by the Constitution of the United States, you better have your facts together and fully understand what it is that you are attempting to do. There is no places for propaganda, hyperbole, political agenda, or “misspeak” when you are dealing with the rights of people, unless you have the specific intent to deceive and deprive them of their rights through the use of false or misleading information. I know that was just two examples of people not articulating their points very well, but this type of “reasoning/justification” or echo chamber talking points are fairly common with anti-gun people/groups or just individuals who do not like guns simply because they don’t understand them or their purpose. I do not have sources you can reference to support my last statement or even the percentage of people who think that way, but I know from personal experience its factual due to conversations I’ve had. I have been working with and around guns for about 20 years. In that time, I have had hundreds, probably even thousands of conversations with people from all walks of life who are or lean in the direction of anti-gun who knowingly or unknowingly recite false information or misconceptions as reasons why or justifications for the abolition of all guns or the implementation of more gun restrictions. I have colleagues who have had similar experiences with people. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with not knowing something or everything about a topic being discussed. It is important to remember, at some point everyone did not know anything about something they are now familiar with or an expert in. Ignorance is not a fault, willful ignorance is though. If in the future there is legislation implemented to ban AR-15 style rifles or other types of rifles that are confined within their definition of an assault rifle, it will only be a matter of time until they begin the work of banning other guns. It is not about the preservation of life, it is about the removal of guns or even more egregious, the depravation of rights. All too often people are willing to sacrifice freedoms in the name of “safety”, and that is something that anti-gun people/groups know and take advantage of using manipulative methods and/or information. I say this with confidence because their (anti-gun people/groups) reasoning for it does not make sense when you get past the “feelings and emotions” part of their claims. I have personally heard people say things like, “we need to get rid of AR-15’s because they are weapons of war and each year 40,000 people die from guns”. Going off feelings and emotions only, that is a very compelling statement, and it is understandable why so many people would support a “call to actions” for it. While there is truth in statements like that, there is not context. Context is incredibly important, especially when you are attempting to deprive people of their rights. Please allow me to provide you with some context: According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) crime statistics [source 6], in 2019 there were approximately 13,927 murders/homicides. Of those:
For comparison purposes:
So approximately 2.61% of murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using a rifle. Again, for comparison purposes, 10.6% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using a knife or cutting instrument, 2.85% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), and 4.31% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.). To break it down even further, in 2019 the population within the United States was approximately 328.2 million people [source 7]. Of that, approximately .000111% of the population were murdered using a rifle. Just to stay consistent with comparisons, approximately .00045% of the population were murdered using a knife or cutting instrument, approximately .000121% of the population were murdered using blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), and approximately .00018% of the population were murdered using personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.). Looking at the numbers, murders/homicides using a rifle is lower and, in some cases, much lower than other means of murder/homicide. If some people want to ban or restrict rifles for the preservation of life, then they need to have consistency with their concern and push for the ban of or restriction of other things such as: knives, hammers, clubs, hands, fists, and feet. If they are more concerned about something that has a lower percentage of death associated with it then they are of other things that have a higher percentage of death, then it is safe to assume their motivation and/or intentions are of a malicious intent. This article does not take into consideration other types of death compared to deaths caused by a rifle. For instance, there are more deaths (approximately 3,873) caused by unintentional drowning [source 8] then there are rifles. If someone's goal is to ban or restrict rifles because they cause death (whether intentional or unintentional) and that person or group is truly concerned about preservation of life, then they need to apply the same amount of effort into banning water, or other types of liquids. To read an in-depth review of deaths caused by guns compared to other causes of deaths, please reference our article: A National Health Crises or Propaganda? My ConclusionThe idea that rifles should be and need to be banned or regulated even more for the purpose of “protecting the people” is nothing more than a trojan horse principle. Get the people to think it is a good thing and have them welcome it into their life. Once it is inside, then you are free to ransack the Constitution. To support my theory even more that banning rifles is a steppingstone into banning most or all guns is the fact that handguns are used more in murders/homicides than any other type of gun. Referencing the same F.B.I. crime statistics [source 6] from 2019, there were approximately 6,368 murders/homicides committed in which a handgun was used. Now I'm no rocket surgeon (sarcasm intended), but it seems to me that if saving lives was really important, an attempt would be made to save more lives instead of less. In my opinion, they (anti-gun people/groups) know that pushing for legislation on the ban or further restriction of handguns is far more unlikely to succeed than that involving rifles. If they start with rifles (even though less people are killed with them, but less people own them) it could be easier later on to go after handguns and/or all guns. The premise is this, get as many people as possible on board before you sink the ship. If and when they (anti-gun people/groups) can successfully pass legislation to ban or restrict rifles, it is only a matter of time until they come for other types of guns. It is a smart tactic to start with rifles, because if they started with handguns or shotguns, more people would be affected by that. It is safe to assume, in order to pass legislation on handguns, shotguns, and/or other types of guns, they (anti-gun people/groups) would have more pushback. If I wanted to strip the American people of a right, I too would start with low hanging fruit (rifles) and work my way up the tree (all guns), which is exactly what they are doing. In my opinion, there is not enough data to justify the actions to further restrict or ban rifles, ammunition, or even the accessories that go with them, especially since the Second Amendment is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT! The InformationI know 2019 is one year out of many, but the numbers across multiple years are similar. I urge you to not just take my word for it. Please do your own research. This is why I provided links to the sources I used. We are fortunate to exist in a technologically advanced time where information is literally at our fingertips. Filter through the data and form your own opinion. This article is not necessarily meant to change your mind or opinion on rifles or the purpose of them, it was meant to provide information so you can make a more informed and rational decision. If at the end, you are still against rifles or guns in general, more power to you, that is your right. Just because you have the right to bear arms (regardless of the reason) does not mean you have it use that right if you do not want to. Please remember though, there are millions of people who also have that same right and they choose to use it. Your decision not to use that right does not supersede others who decided to use it.  Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Sources
We here at Intuitive Defense support the decision for any American to exercise their Second Amendment right (regardless of reason or reasons) just as we support the decision of any American who does not want to exercise their Second Amendment right (for any reason or reasons). Just because it is there, does not mean you have to used it, but the important take away from this is, that right is there regardless of use or not. Having said that, we here at Intuitive Defense take full advantage of the Second Amendment and we use it every day. To us, a gun does not equal death. Of course, death in general is something people cannot escape and death due to a gun is possible, but not guaranteed. Just because a gun is designed, manufactured, sold, bought, and used does not mean that particular gun will ever be the cause of death or even injury. This principle is true with many things that have some level of danger or death associated with them, to include, but not limited to: motor vehicles, knives, ladders, airplanes, power equipment, machinery, ect. Certainly, my primary reason that I choose to exercise my Second Amendment right through the ownership of a gun is for personal protection. If I never have to use it in a self-defense situation, I will be ok with that, but a gun is more than just a tool for protection. To me it is a means of enjoyment. I enjoy the challenges of target shooting and the implementation of tactics and techniques that allow me to hone my skill. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a well-built gun. I enjoy the sound of a full metal jacket bullet leaving my pistol and impacting on a steel target 35 yards away. I enjoy walking onto a range and knowing that I will push myself mentally and physically to do better this time than the last time. I enjoy holding myself accountable. I enjoy sharing my passion with other individuals who also enjoy exercising their Second Amendment right. I enjoy the responsibilities that come with owning a gun. I enjoy teaching people who are new to guns and watching their progress. I enjoy the gun for the gun, not the possibility of death. More importantly, I enjoy using my freedom to exercise my Second Amendment right that is guaranteed to me for use whenever, wherever, and without reason. Every day it seems that gun owners have to explain or justify why they own a gun or guns or more simply put, why they are exercising their right. Imagine having to explain or justify why you use one or all of your other rights, or more simply put, why you feel the need to use your freedoms. Not that gun owners are obligated to explain or justify why they exercise their right, just as Americans do not need to explain or justify why they exercise their freedom of speech, but sometimes people just want to better understand why a gun owner is a gun owner. Typically, when faced with questions like that, I say something to the extent of, “I own a gun because I am free to do so, just as you are free not to own a gun if you so choose. The right to bear arms, just like all of our rights, work together to prevent the infringement of our other rights. If we have to justify the use of our rights or any specific right to the government or to other people, then that means there is a failure on the part of the person asking to understand the purpose of those rights and therefore, the necessity of them. If one right is deemed “dangerous” or not “necessary” then there is a probability that at any time, other rights will soon become extinct. Our rights are written is such a way that they can withstand time, and as they are written, still provide protection regardless of technology, environment, application, politics, and people. Unfortunately, their weakness is weak people who do not understand the importance of our rights or who prefer the illusion of “protection” over freedom or who choose to support individuals that desire to deprive American people of their rights for evil reasons. If one right falls, they all fall and then we are no longer free.” Usually, they follow my response up with a slightly confused look as I did not provide the simple rebuttal they were looking for, especially if they were hoping for an argumentative response. To then drive the importance of that statement home, I replace the right to bear arms with any other right. For instance, freedom of speech, or protection against unreasonable search and seizure. “I said what I said because I am free to do so, just as you are free not to if you so choose. The freedom of speech, just like all of our rights, work together to prevent the infringement of our other rights. If we have to justify the use of our rights or any specific right to the government or to other people, then that means there is a failure on the part of the person asking to understand the purpose of those rights and therefore, the necessity of them. If one right is deemed “dangerous” or not “necessary” then there is a probability that at any time, other rights will soon become extinct. Our rights are written is such a way that they can withstand time, and as they are written, still provide protection regardless of technology, environment, application, politics, and people. Unfortunately, their weakness is weak people who do not understand the importance of our rights or who prefer the illusion of “protection” over freedom or who choose to support individuals that desire to deprive American people of their rights for evil reasons. If one right falls, they all fall and then we are no longer free.” In my opinion, if an individual cannot understand the importance of that statement, then they take freedom for granted and they do not comprehend how dangerous complacency can be. Our rights, all of them, are in place for the preservation of freedom. Freedom is in place for the preservation of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you are the type of person who is intimidated by the freedom of others, then by all means, please relocate to a country where your freedom is restricted or in some cases, condemned. If you decide to stay here in America because the thought of your freedom or lack thereof being controlled by others terrifies you (and it should), then I beg of you, stop trying to restrict or condemn other people’s freedoms here. Defend freedom by supporting it, even if you choose not to use that particular freedom.  Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
November 2024
|
RSS Feed
