I love guns, but they’re not my only passion. Like most people, I have other interests. One of those is history. I’m a sucker for medieval history, and that lead me to follow a guy named Matt Easton on YouTube. Recently, he had an interesting video about why weapons bans are mean.
Now, he wasn’t trying to get into the politics of such bans, though it’s kind of hard not to. Still, it’s worth a listen.
Now, if you watch the above, he made a really, really good point in his analogy about pets. Do you really need to own a pet? Can you really justify a pet?
For most people, they can’t. Yet, so what? It’s not about that and it never has been. You don’t have to justify your every purchase, so that’s kind of a BS argument about weapons.
What’s funny, though, is how Easton talks about how curved swords more than a certain length are treated like weapons of war and so on. I’m sorry, but it just reminds me so much of how an AR-15 is treated.
The difference is that Easton’s curved swords are identical to some that have actually been used in war, unlike the AR-15. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still stupid, but this is what happens when you focus on banning weapons rather than focusing on behavior.
And people are deluded if they think this won’t happen here if the anti-gunners get their way.
England has never had the kind of gun rights we have. I get that. It’s always been treated like a privilege there, and that’s a shame. Now, though, they gutted people’s ability to own guns, and not only did it not help, crime soared. Now, they’re focusing on swords, something most people don’t have a clue how to use effectively anyway. It’s pathetic.
And we’re next if some people get their way.
Easton, as someone from England, seems to understand the stupidity of all of this in a way far too many Americans don’t. For him, yes, it’s part of his livelihood. That doesn’t negate the fact that the government there is creating arbitrary limits to what people can own and proponents of that are using ridiculous arguments to defend those decisions.
Sorry, but no.
I’m not interested in giving up my guns. I’m not interested in giving up my swords. Your weapons bans aren’t going to be beneficial to society, only to someone’s reelection bids, and that’s just not a good enough reason to disarm me.
And that’s without even talking about the rights side of things. Easton didn’t delve into that, nor should he. Rights aren’t an argument likely to be accepted in the UK, so he took a different tact, which we should consider here in the U.S. as well. After all, so many of the people we’re debating already think that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t really an individual right.
Either way, I came across this and found it interesting and figured some of you might as well.
View original Post