I caught this on the interwebs today: “Let’s send our gun-packing watercooler warriors to fight ISIS.”
How about not.
It is a turd sandwich of an article. It starts with an obnoxious title and ends with a statically inaccurate character defamation of gun owners, with a big, deliberate constitutional misinterpretation turd right in the middle. Of course it went all the way, with the usual condiments of ignorance, contempt, and anti-gun hogwash.
Let’s take a bite, shall we.
The author opens by referring to gun owners as “watercooler warriors.” It’s a snide insult to gun owners, especially to those who have served in the military.
Skipping to the end, the author states:
Many of America’s most aggressive hawks are presumably already armed, and have spent years practicing their marksmanship against doves, deer, ducks and other domestic enemies. This is a magnificent chance for them to put it into action against foreign enemies too.
Meanwhile, many of our gun owners have a surplus of aggression that needs an outlet. They manage to shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day, meaning we suffer our own “Paris attacks” every few days at the hands of a few of our own citizens.
Again, it’s the same anti-gun BS that gun owners are aggressive and trigger happy, just waiting for the first chance to shoot someone.
As Mark Twain famously wrote: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I don’t know if the “shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day” statement is accurate, but the way he approaches it is not. Assuming the number is accurate, those shootings are not evenly distributed across all law abiding gun owners. It’s not as though 30 random law abiding gun owners a day decide to kill someone. The overwhelming majority of shootings are concentrated in certain areas and socioeconomic groups (criminals be committing crimes). This video breaks the numbers down much better than I can do a write up here. The point is, the vast majority of law abiding gun owners will never shoot anybody, ever.
Alone, these insults to law abiding gun owners are the same thing that we see all the time posted on the CSGV Facebook feed. But what really makes this article is the total lack Constitutional accuracy.
Most gun owners know they have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” but they may not realize the government also has a constitutional right to draft them to serve in the country’s defense.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms to maintain a “well-regulated militia” for the security of the state, meaning a force of citizen-soldiers that the federal government can send into battle. Anyone availing themselves of the right to keep and bear arms is thereby making themselves available for the militia.
While the author is accurate in that the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to “raise and support Armies” that is not part of the 2A. It is Article 1, Section 8, to be specific. The “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with the Selective Service system, which was founded in 1917. The US Supreme Court made it clear that the “right to keep and bear arms” was an individual right and that “a well regulated militia” does not mean a military force. At best “a well regulated militia” is just the pool of potential conscripts in the US.
SCOTUS looked at the 2A twice in recent memory, Heller and McDonald, and at no time came to the conclusion that the right to possess guns was had in exchange for military service. The right to keep and bear arms was affirmed to exist for the purpose of defending oneself.
Going to the heart of the issue, our Founding Fathers made it crystal clear why they believed in the right of the people to keep and bear arms: TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
The idea of drafting gun owners and sending them to war might sound controversial today, but it would not be to the Founding Fathers. It’s exactly what they recommended. They believed in citizen-soldiers rather than a professional army.
At the very least, [Obama] could require registration from everyone who owns a semi-automatic assault weapon such as an AK-47. Why not? What sort of patriotic American owns an AK-47 and high-capacity clips and yet refuses to answer his country’s call when asked?
No, wrong again. The national defense and power to raise an army and navy is established in the Constitution. This nation was born because of a Government trained and equipped military. It was lead by General George Washington. It was equipped and trained, largely by the help of France. Its soldiers were paid and its officers commissioned by the Continental Congress. Remember, the Minuetmen were not part of the Continental Army.
The United States Government has never sent Americans, armed with their personal firearms, into war. Not even when war occurred on US soil, e.g. the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc. The idea of citizen soldiers did/does not exist as a means to fight wars overseas. It existed/exists to defend the American people from their own government if the normal process of a redress of grievances has failed.
Oh, and thanks for questioning our patriotism and implying that we are cowards, asshole.
But in the author’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion, he seems to overlook the fact that selectively drafting people based on political ideology and sending them, untrained, and inappropriately equipped to fight and die halfway around the world, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists. To stop the government from pulling that type of bullshit where it targets citizens for death or exile for disagreeing with the government.
Even with his last sentence, the author has proven he wrote the article while self-administering a naked eye colonoscopy.
Why not deploy them against ISIS?
That’s what gun owners have been asking, in reference to attacks on US soil. If Paris (twice), Mali, Israel, or Kenya has shown us anything, it’s that between the first cries of “allahu akbar” and when the police end the killing, terrorist can rack up quite a body count. Concealed carriers have cut short mass shootings in the past. But why do I believe that this idiot is fan of gun free zones. Sure, he wants to send gun owners to Syria to defend America, but I doubt would want CCW permit holders to defend him or themselves in his local shopping mall.
In the end, this is nothing more than the same anti-gunner fantasy to wipe out American gun owners that Miguel has been chronicling for years. The only difference is, rather than suggest that the US military do the killing, he wants ISIS to do it. It’s clear from his obvious distaste for gun owners. All 727 words of this digital poop-spear boil down to “just send those fat, gun owning, knuckle-draggers to Syria to get wiped out by ISIS.”