http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/16_proposal.html
An Exceedingly Modest Proposal
August 16, 2003
By TygrBright
They call it an "epiphany" when a sudden, blinding, life-changing insight hits you. I think I've just had one.
So much of one that I'm sending in my membership fee to the NRA tomorrow, and looking for other advocacy groups to send generous checks to - groups that promote gun access and ownership rights.
I've been hearing the arguments all my life, more or less. You know the ones I mean:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Frankly, I'd always more or less dismissed these arguments as the self-interested rhetoric of a few hobbyists, sportsmen, etc. Not that I strongly disagreed with them. Indeed, until just the other day I'd always been rather wishy-washy on the whole Second Amendment issue. I didn't want prohibition, but I worried about unrestricted access, too.
No more; I have seen The Light. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Hand me that Kalashnikov, willya? And throw in a little light artillery while you're at it, maybe a couple of RPGs and a launcher. I need to take responsibility for the safety of myself, my home, my neighborhood, and even my country.
Oh, yeah, and remind me to send in those subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune and Guns & Ammo, too.
So what caused this moment of truth? Like so many die-hard advocates for unrestricted access to ordnance of all types, it was an act of underhanded government tyranny that turned me around. Seeing just how far the government will go to keep the people unarmed and helpless made me understand the true nature of the threat, and revealed my obligation to stand firm against this outrageous oppression.
You might be wondering what the hell I'm talking about, if you haven't really listened to the news in the past couple of days. Friends, I am here to tell you: Hemant Lakhani is just the tip of a very menacing iceberg.
You're probably at least aware of the broadest outlines of the story of this victim of FBI entrapment, but you might not yet truly understand what it portends for you. Well, bear with me, while I explain.
You see, at first I, like many of you, heard the story of how Mr. Lakhani was "caught" trying to "facilitate terrorism" by selling surface-to-air missiles to "would-be terrorists." And, like many of you (probably) I thought, "Well, good, that's a few less implements of mayhem in the hands of evildoers. Good on you, Mr. Mueller."
Then the details came through. Mr. Lakhani was set up! It was a sting! There were no evil terrorists plotting to down good old American airplanes; it was all a con job!
It didn't bother me at first. After all, there could be lowdown swarthy men with nasty designs on us, trying to buy missiles, right? And keeping them from getting the missiles should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
Except it suddenly occurred to me: If they start entrapping sellers of surface-to-air missiles, won't it become harder for honest people who want to buy them for legitimate purposes to obtain them? And what might be the consequences of that?
Now, doubtless you, like me, first responded to this question with a chuckle. Who would want a SAM?
But here's where my epiphany happened. A little voice in my head (sounded remarkably like Charlton Heston,) said "Well, what if some guy in a penthouse apartment in New York City had a SAM handy around 9:00 AM on 9/11/01?"
It seemed absurd at first. But I couldn't shake the nagging thought. What if?
All those arguments I'd been hearing for so long took on new meaning:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
Damn straight. And if they know that every other household or so has a SAM launcher on the roof and knows how to use it, those damn terrorists will think twice about pulling another stunt like 9/11. If we station an RPG launcher next to every fire extinguisher, and everyone carries a grenade in their backpack, briefcase, or purse, just think of the deterrent effect! Mentally ill people planning random shootings will have to deal with the logistics of evading real firepower, in the hands of some really pissed-off innocent bystanders.
The possibilities just keep getting bigger and bigger.
"An armed society is a polite society."
Well, slap my forehead, they're right! Think about it! The solution to the problem of North Korea building a nuclear arsenal is not to dither on about nuclear non-proliferation at the UN like a bunch of girly-man wussies. Start selling our excess nuclear warheads at a special "friends discount" to South Korea, Japan, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore! That ought to make Kim Jong Il think twice about starting anything. It's not nuclear non-proliferation we should be pushing - we should be engaging in a coordinated strategy of nuclear distribution on a global scale! World peace is finally within our grasp!
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Well, call it another 'duh-uh-uh' moment for me. Of course. We could have avoided the whole expensive Iraqi mess if we'd just listen to Mr. Heston. Why send more than a hundred and thirty thousand Americans to play tin duck in 120-degree heat and spend a billion a week on 'nation building?' After all, the real problem in Iraq was the terrible tyranny the Iraqis were subject to, tyranny we were just morally obligated to rescue them from.
So why didn't they ask Wayne LaPierre before getting all those young Americans killed? We could have just blanketed all of Iraq with guns and grenades, SAMs and small-caliber howitzers. Dropped 'em in by airlift. Ten or twelve billion dollars worth ought to have done the trick, I reckon, and cheap at twice the price, compared to what we're paying (and paying, and paying, and paying…) The Iraqi people could have risen up against their oppressor and overthrown government tyranny, just like we did in 1776!
Well, it's too late, now, but it might be a cheap and easy exit strategy to get us out of Iraq. Just line up every single Iraqi citizen over the age of, say, twelve. Yes, even the women. Issue each one with a Kalashnikov, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a couple of dozen grenades. Put a missile launcher in every neighborhood in the cities, and in the center of the smaller towns and villages, and give each citizen a half dozen or so missiles. They can protect themselves from tyranny for years, with an arsenal like that, and it would be lots cheaper than all this wimpy 'nation-building' stuff.
I'd write more, but I have to research militia training. After all, it'll be my responsibility to know how to use my new SAMs and launcher.
If I can find someone to sell them to me without those minions of despotism at the FBI to intimidate and entrap them.
Remember: If SAMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SAMs!
An Exceedingly Modest Proposal
August 16, 2003
By TygrBright
They call it an "epiphany" when a sudden, blinding, life-changing insight hits you. I think I've just had one.
So much of one that I'm sending in my membership fee to the NRA tomorrow, and looking for other advocacy groups to send generous checks to - groups that promote gun access and ownership rights.
I've been hearing the arguments all my life, more or less. You know the ones I mean:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Frankly, I'd always more or less dismissed these arguments as the self-interested rhetoric of a few hobbyists, sportsmen, etc. Not that I strongly disagreed with them. Indeed, until just the other day I'd always been rather wishy-washy on the whole Second Amendment issue. I didn't want prohibition, but I worried about unrestricted access, too.
No more; I have seen The Light. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Hand me that Kalashnikov, willya? And throw in a little light artillery while you're at it, maybe a couple of RPGs and a launcher. I need to take responsibility for the safety of myself, my home, my neighborhood, and even my country.
Oh, yeah, and remind me to send in those subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune and Guns & Ammo, too.
So what caused this moment of truth? Like so many die-hard advocates for unrestricted access to ordnance of all types, it was an act of underhanded government tyranny that turned me around. Seeing just how far the government will go to keep the people unarmed and helpless made me understand the true nature of the threat, and revealed my obligation to stand firm against this outrageous oppression.
You might be wondering what the hell I'm talking about, if you haven't really listened to the news in the past couple of days. Friends, I am here to tell you: Hemant Lakhani is just the tip of a very menacing iceberg.
You're probably at least aware of the broadest outlines of the story of this victim of FBI entrapment, but you might not yet truly understand what it portends for you. Well, bear with me, while I explain.
You see, at first I, like many of you, heard the story of how Mr. Lakhani was "caught" trying to "facilitate terrorism" by selling surface-to-air missiles to "would-be terrorists." And, like many of you (probably) I thought, "Well, good, that's a few less implements of mayhem in the hands of evildoers. Good on you, Mr. Mueller."
Then the details came through. Mr. Lakhani was set up! It was a sting! There were no evil terrorists plotting to down good old American airplanes; it was all a con job!
It didn't bother me at first. After all, there could be lowdown swarthy men with nasty designs on us, trying to buy missiles, right? And keeping them from getting the missiles should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
Except it suddenly occurred to me: If they start entrapping sellers of surface-to-air missiles, won't it become harder for honest people who want to buy them for legitimate purposes to obtain them? And what might be the consequences of that?
Now, doubtless you, like me, first responded to this question with a chuckle. Who would want a SAM?
But here's where my epiphany happened. A little voice in my head (sounded remarkably like Charlton Heston,) said "Well, what if some guy in a penthouse apartment in New York City had a SAM handy around 9:00 AM on 9/11/01?"
It seemed absurd at first. But I couldn't shake the nagging thought. What if?
All those arguments I'd been hearing for so long took on new meaning:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
Damn straight. And if they know that every other household or so has a SAM launcher on the roof and knows how to use it, those damn terrorists will think twice about pulling another stunt like 9/11. If we station an RPG launcher next to every fire extinguisher, and everyone carries a grenade in their backpack, briefcase, or purse, just think of the deterrent effect! Mentally ill people planning random shootings will have to deal with the logistics of evading real firepower, in the hands of some really pissed-off innocent bystanders.
The possibilities just keep getting bigger and bigger.
"An armed society is a polite society."
Well, slap my forehead, they're right! Think about it! The solution to the problem of North Korea building a nuclear arsenal is not to dither on about nuclear non-proliferation at the UN like a bunch of girly-man wussies. Start selling our excess nuclear warheads at a special "friends discount" to South Korea, Japan, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore! That ought to make Kim Jong Il think twice about starting anything. It's not nuclear non-proliferation we should be pushing - we should be engaging in a coordinated strategy of nuclear distribution on a global scale! World peace is finally within our grasp!
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Well, call it another 'duh-uh-uh' moment for me. Of course. We could have avoided the whole expensive Iraqi mess if we'd just listen to Mr. Heston. Why send more than a hundred and thirty thousand Americans to play tin duck in 120-degree heat and spend a billion a week on 'nation building?' After all, the real problem in Iraq was the terrible tyranny the Iraqis were subject to, tyranny we were just morally obligated to rescue them from.
So why didn't they ask Wayne LaPierre before getting all those young Americans killed? We could have just blanketed all of Iraq with guns and grenades, SAMs and small-caliber howitzers. Dropped 'em in by airlift. Ten or twelve billion dollars worth ought to have done the trick, I reckon, and cheap at twice the price, compared to what we're paying (and paying, and paying, and paying…) The Iraqi people could have risen up against their oppressor and overthrown government tyranny, just like we did in 1776!
Well, it's too late, now, but it might be a cheap and easy exit strategy to get us out of Iraq. Just line up every single Iraqi citizen over the age of, say, twelve. Yes, even the women. Issue each one with a Kalashnikov, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a couple of dozen grenades. Put a missile launcher in every neighborhood in the cities, and in the center of the smaller towns and villages, and give each citizen a half dozen or so missiles. They can protect themselves from tyranny for years, with an arsenal like that, and it would be lots cheaper than all this wimpy 'nation-building' stuff.
I'd write more, but I have to research militia training. After all, it'll be my responsibility to know how to use my new SAMs and launcher.
If I can find someone to sell them to me without those minions of despotism at the FBI to intimidate and entrap them.
Remember: If SAMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SAMs!
)