Truth and Art TV
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut many liberals, NPR news listeners, Associated Press readers, Michael Moore followers and un-awakened corporate mainstream media believers are calling for gun control. They have succumbed to the bombardment of corporate media lies, propaganda and sensationalism that comes with the global government's primary goal of destroying the second Amendment. Many of us have heard the Michael Moore arguments that the second Amendment was intended by the founding fathers only in the context of the guns that were available then; that being the large barrel single-shot musket available at the time. Liberals and rejuvenated anti-gun advocates are raising this issue as an excuse to eliminate all rifles, shotguns if not all guns all together.
This is the argument they are clinging to in order to demonize gun advocates, but is there any logic to this strawman argument? Let’s examine this argument logically and mathematically:
The basis of this Michael Moore/Bob Costas strawman argument that so many zombies throughout America are echoing is that there is ‘no need’ for Americans to have semi-automatic weapons or weapons that are larger than ordinary handguns; some argue that no guns should be legal at all. They ignore the fundamental purpose of the Constitution; that unilateral government force is dangerous and that protection from large highly armed government comes from, among other things, an armed responsible civilians population willing to keep the concept of revolution and individual freedom alive and viable.
They ignore the ideologies and concepts of individualism, the importance of individual sovereignty and freedom, the danger of over-reaching large government, fascism and tyranny and the known end results of what happens when individual citizens allow the government to have all the power and weapons. This strawman argument that the Michael Moore audience is presenting as proof that guns should be controlled is solely based on this fallacious argument of ‘context of fire power relative to the times the Constitution was written’. However, if one applies a little logic and math one can quickly see the fallacy in this argument.
Did the founding fathers feel that if the government had more than just muskets that the people should stop at muskets and allow the government to arm itself uncontrollably? Did the founding fathers feel that is was okay to have an exponentially wide gap of fire power between the government and the people; even if it meant that the guns available to the people were futile and irrelevant? Would any of the authors of the Constitution have endorsed such gap of fire power knowing well what would happen with that gap? Were any of them confident that if the fire-power gap made the second Amendment irrelevant, that the sovereign citizens would have nothing to worry about? Did the founding fathers ever express this lack of concern? All attempts to assume that the founding fathers would have been okay with government exponentially stronger fire power (therein defeating the spirit of the very second amendment they drafted) is based on lies, wild assumption and fallacy.
That’s the logic, but what about applying some numbers? It is mathematically a fact that 99.99 percent of Americans who do own higher-powered guns and small arms will never go on a shooting rampage and kill innocent people. This level of violence in humans is so rare that it can be said with a high degree of mathematical confidence that this level of violence is essentially non-existent in the human race. Human essentially don’t resort to this level of violence unless they are under pharmaceutical drugs, are victims of mind-control and/or working for government entities with clear political agendas as we have seen in numerous recent shootings in the U.S.. In other words you can count one hundred, a thousand or a million people with guns and the odds of one of those people suddenly going mad and murdering others in a shooting rampage for no specific reason outlined above is essentially ZERO. Zero is a strong and significant number that slams the anti-gun argument to the ground once and for all.
So as we move forward in this post-Newtown Connecticut shooting let’s remember the basics of logic, math and reason as we watch dumbed-down Americans drink the Kool-Aid of government and corporate media propaganda based on fallacy, strawman arguments and irrational logic. Let’s remind the anti-gun liberals and Michael Moore followers that it was their corrupt government that was caught red-handed selling powerful guns to drug lords in the Fast and Furious scandal. It is this corrupt government that is working with terrorists in the Middle East, it is this government that murders Americans without trial and kills countless others with drones in the name of the ‘war on terror’. Remind these anti-gun advocates that their linear and isolated strawman arguments are falling on deaf ears because too many of us are fully aware of the history of our corrupt politicians, the long history of their relationship with drug lords and terrorists, their history of staging shooting massacres and their well known agenda to disarm Americans so they can move forward with their global government.
Finally, remind anti-gun advocates of the dangers of having a completely disarmed public in the hands of a powerfully armed corrupt government. Ask them to look at history and to point out one example where an unarmed public was able to live free at the hands of a tyrannical government. This is the nature of tyranny and fascism and we need to find a way to make these anti-gun advocates mindful, aware and concerned about our present and our future in light of our past.
Original article link:
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|