2/19/13, No. 60
WARNING: Liberals offended by the images on this page are mentally ill.
Suck the barrel: What do we gun owners want? We defend the 2nd-amendment not because of self-defense—we just say that. The real reason is, we want a gun handy when the time comes. In 2010, 30,000 people died in this country from guns, and two-thirds were self-inflicted. That’s what guns are for. With the second amendment, you can take the physician-assisted out of the “physician-assisted suicide.” The gun is the perfect home-suicide device.
So, here’s my modest proposal number 104: the government shouldn’t be doing Gun Buy Backs; it should be conducting Gun Giveaways. Arm everyone. Give out free guns. Nobody’ll ever need an Oregon doctor again. And with a Gun Giveaway, you needn’t be old or ailing. Even a teenager’ll be able to check out, whenever the impulse strikes. And teenagers have a lot of impulses.
Today the local Jacksonville NPR affiliate, WJCT-FM, aired a segment of the Diane Rehm Show, and, boy! did she out us! Except, she and her guests only had the story half right. On the one hand, they figured out that high suicide rates and having easy access to guns are linked. On the other, they had everything backwards. They thought easy access to guns was a bad thing. They really missed the point. They didn’t understand that guns don’t commit suicide; PEOPLE commit suicide. They just use a gun to do it. The gun is a tool. A means to an end. Having a lot of guns around merely allows people to do what they want to do. Like, kill themselves. The statistics don’t demonstrate that there are too many guns. Rather, they show that people want to commit suicide.
People use guns to kill themselves more than every other method combined. And then her guests began pondering why people use them more than any other. Well, DUH! Where did Diane Rehm get these panelists anyway? Like, maybe people use guns to kill themselves because they’re more effective than pills or poison? Sometimes having a Ph.D. makes you more stupid. You can listen to their idiocy here.
Then these “experts” talked about how people during certain periods of their lives are more likely to kill themselves than during other periods. The likelihood of committing suicide increases around the age of 75, especially among men. Why might this be so? Her ‘expert’ guests seemed truly puzzled by this question. . . . WELL, HEEE-LLL-OOO!?!?!? Old men are feeble, impotent, and sick. Of course they want to die! All their lives they’ve been saying, “They shoot horses, don’t they?” But actually, they don’t want someone to shoot them. They’d rather do it themselves. That’s the real reason why all their lives they’ve been vigorously defending the second amendment. “As long as I have my gun,” they quietly think to themselves, “I can end it myself.”
These men know that the gun is the ultimate do-it-yourself, end-of-life device. And that’s why they’ve always been so suspicious of government: they’re afraid it’ll take away their means to an end, namely, THE END. Now, at age 75, they want the pay off. They’ve spent a lifetime getting invested in the concept. All through the years their secret motive has been: “Don’t let big government take away my means of blowing my own head off.”
However, my concern here, Mr. Editor, is not old men, but teenagers. Diane Rehm’s guests were most alarmed about adolescence being a peak suicide period. Teens usually use guns to kill themselves. According to the CDC, suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death among youth aged 12-19. Once I too was concerned about teenage suicide. I too once supported gun control. I supported the liberal agenda. But I’ve since concluded that there’s no other remedy to our problems today but Gun Giveaways. Only by giving away firearms promiscuously—to teens, toddlers, everybody—can we really begin to solve our problem. The problem? Failure to take responsibility. Solution? Choice! A gun gives a person the option to live, or a means to die.
I can think of not one objection that can possibly be raised against my proposal, unless it should be suggested that the number of teens in our society will be greatly decreased. This I freely concede, and this outcome, in fact, is a principal reason why I offer it. Mr. Editor, please realize that my remedy will achieve its greatest impact among teenagers. And it makes sense. If we are only going to do the bare minimum for them when it comes to raising them and steering them on the right path, and frequently not even that, then we should consider giving them the next best alternative. Think of my proposal as Plan B.
More and more teenagers will be able to take themselves and their siblings out of their own misery. Teen misery can be remarkably intense but short in duration. No matter! When the dark mood strikes, a gun will be within reach—JUST WHEN THEY NEED IT! Ultimately, a high-teen-suicide rate will prove a remarkable saving to the taxpayer: high schools will have lower enrollments.
Therefore, let no one talk to me of other expedients: of looking for and addressing the signs of depression in troubled teens; of increasing social services and outreach; of persuading them to eat healthy food and exercise vigorously; of warning them about the dangers of smoking; of supervising them in after-school sports or intellectual activities so they won’t wander into trouble;
of listening to their concerns with an open mind and heart; of staffing the high schools with more and better-informed counselors; of increasing taxes to fund a decent if not a rigorous education; of returning arts and music to the classroom; of teaching real sex education to reduce disease and pregnancies; of instructing students with the goal of arousing curiosity rather than preparing them for a test; of implementing universal pre-K and Head Start programs so that tomorrow’s teens will be more stable and better prepared than today’s; of instructing parents how to inspire their children with dreams of a better tomorrow; and, most importantly, of inculcating moral values affirming life rather than justifying killing for glory or expediency.
I repeat, let no one talk to me of these and the like expedients until he or she has some glimmer of hope there’ll ever be a sincere attempt to put them into practice.
But, as for myself, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, of arming everyone to the teeth, and thereby easing everyone’s path to suicide, which, as it is completely innovative, so it has something about it that’s solid and real. Little expense is involved, and it doesn’t require a lot of trouble.
.It’s a proposal fully in accord with the second amendment. And it’ll not arouse the ire of the NRA. In fact, I expect that group to embrace and lobby for it in the halls of Congress until free guns become plentiful in the land.
Let me stress that I’m still open to other proposals. I’m not so ideologically driven as to reject any offer proposed by wiser individuals, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual..
But make no mistake: once Gun Giveaways have been implemented, it won’t be just crotchety old men and impulsive teenagers taking their lives. Others will start to see the logic of it. In fact, everyone across the board, regardless of age, class, race, ethnicity, or gender will begin to question the point of it all. As people begin to consider deeply who and what they are, and to mull it all over late in the night, they’ll feel the urge to get the gun out, fondle it, and consider practicing their ultimate second amendment right.
I think I’ve made my point, that the second amendment is the Jim Jones Amendment. Hail to Jim Jones for showing us the way. In his spirit I say: Guns for Everyone! Give everyone a gun! The elderly! Teens! Toddlers! Infants! Start everybody young. Along with the bottle, babies should suck the barrel, to be ready, fully prepared for when the moment comes to end it all. Why? Because guns for everyone is the final solution—the final solution to life.
Jonestown nation, or bust!