I finally got a gun gifted to me through work: a Smith and Wesson snub-nose .357 magnum, five-shot with an internal hammer. A beautiful weapon for concealed carry and self-defense. I had it transferred to a local gun store here in Weymouth, Massachusetts, and eagerly awaited its arrival.
Then I showed up to the store and tried to pick it up.
HO-LEE FUCK-BALLS.
I had no idea how hard the Peaceful People’s Republic of Massachusetts makes it to actually own a gun, much less get one to carry concealed. By the end of that 16 month journey, I was converted to an ardent Second Amendment advocate. Let me ‘splain, but first, a diversion.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/husband-and-wife-open-fire-on-gunmen-who-try-to/article_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html
This story showed up in my facebook feed this morning. Go ahead and read it and watch the news report. I’ll wait, so take your time.
Sorry, I went and topped off my coffee.
In short, two men in their 30’s – with guns – grab a 17 year old girl in front of her house while she’s going to her car. They use her as a human shield to force their way into her home, where her mom and dad were waiting… with their own guns. Papa was home visiting mama and his daughter (they’re not together) and saw the abduction take place. End Result: One attacker dead and another in the hospital.
Now, when I showed up to the local hunting store, I was told I needed to first apply to own a gun. I was like, “Wait, what? I just want to pick up my gun. I don’t want a license to carry concealed or anything.” Nope. No sirree, I was told. You can’t even pick it up or own it until you first apply – to the government – and then get approved – by the government – to actually own a fucking handgun. Let’s just let that sink in for a moment.
On a seemingly unrelated note, I heard recently Piers Morgan was getting canned by CNN. Now, I think he’s an arrogant prick generally, notwithstanding that mom’s mom came over from London during the Blitz and still has the accent (God Bless the old dame, she’s still kickin’ it at 90). His anti-gun blather (and Dear Leader’s) drove me nuts in the wake of Sandy Hook, to which several of my friends in CT law enforcement responded. One of Morgan’s more caustic refrains was the constant, “Well, I just don’t understand why Americans have this fascination…with.. assahlt weapuhns… in the fuhst place.” And then it hit me one day when I was reading on his plummeting ratings and someone forwarded me some of his rants about guns.
Of course you’re against gun ownership, you limey douche, I thought. You’re British. So was King Fucking George.
The British Monarchy knew very well (as did the Tokugawa shogunate and many other historical examples) – and as does every government that wants to maintain absolute power over its citizenry – that the first order of business to maintaining control over the populace is to disarm the people. Period. Then there is no law that can’t be passed, no legislation that is too abhorrent, no edict that can’t be jammed down the throats of the people. They have to simply suck on it because there is no means of resisting.
And our Founding Fathers had lived through it. Hence the Second Amendment.
They knew full well what that was like. In the lead up to the American Revolution, the British embargoed weapons shipments to America, and by 1775, attempted to confiscate weapons from the colonists. The “shot heard round the world” at Lexington was fired in response to British troops moving west from Boston on orders to confiscate colonial weapons and gunpowder, and to capture John Hancock and Sam Adams, the leaders of the “rebel militia.”
Anyway, I’d never really wanted to own a gun; I had one whenever I was on duty or off at war. I lived in places that I deemed safe enough to not warrant a gun, although I’ve always owned knives and swords from my martial arts days. On the other hand, I always respected other folks who did – and I knew a LOT of guys in the Marines and law enforcement who owned LOTS of weapons, of varying calibers and capability.
So, here I was trying to own a simple gun for self-defense. And I’ve got more than adequate cause to have one: I was a prosecutor for years and I’ve put lots of people away. Military people. Who know how to use guns. And I lead a more than average public life. It wouldn’t be too hard to find me. I’ve also been a defense attorney and some of my clients have gone to jail. I’m sure a few aren’t thrilled with that either. I have daughters living at home. I could go on and on (and did), as I had to enumerate these on my request to both own (and carry) a weapon.
And that really started to bother me.
Then I was told point blank to amend my application. That I would NOT be approved to carry no matter my justifications. N. O. Way.
“Why is that?” I asked.
“Because that’s the Chief’s policy. Only former LEO or active duty military.”
“I’m in the military. I’m a Reserve Marine Officer.”
“Sorry.”
“That’s it? ‘Sorry’? Excuse me, why is a former Law Enforcement Officer more worthy of owning a gun than I am?” Silence. Now it was getting awkward.
“Look, sir, that’s just the policy…”
And that’s when I realized this has nothing to do with preventing injuries or harm. It’s about power and control. This wasn’t an assault weapon. This was a five-shot revolver. I’m not some knucklehead, I’m an officer of the court in my day job and I’ve flown helicopters that had 5″ rockets, air-to-air missiles, 750 rounds of 20mm HEI (high-explosive incendiary rounds) in the nose gun on normal day’s flying, and I flew that over schools and houses and anywhere else it needed to go. I was qualified to sign for and command multiple ships of that, but somehow I couldn’t create any justification for why I should own a handgun and be allowed to carry that when I’m driving home late at night from some rough areas where I have to travel, either for work or just because I have to transit those areas.
People who talk about “reasonable” restrictions on “assault weapons” miss the point entirely. Those weapons exist. That genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in. Bad guys have them and don’t give a fuck about gun laws. And as the incident above shows, they’ll grab a 17 year old girl off the street at gunpoint and attempt to invade a home. Would we object if the father had a rifle and used it? Would it somehow be “bad” if he’d used an AR-15 instead of a pistol? What if one of the intruders had had that kind of weapon? Is it so outside the pale to imagine that they could have?
At the moment we start trying to confiscate these so-called “bad weapons,” we’ve disarmed the citizens and I don’t want to hear any more bullshit about the benevolence of government in protecting me. Thanks, but I never gave away that right so far as I recall, and I don’t think any government can claim to be legitimate that tries to usurp it from me. Well-armed, I don’t really fear the bad guys any more.
I fear a sheriff who tells me that he and his buddies, and active duty military, are the only ones worthy of having the right to own a weapon. I fear that these federal agencies all have their own SWAT teams: the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
I’ve heard that song before and read enough history to know that it never ends well for the disarmed. Ask Jose Guerena (and many others) about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting