Giving Up the Gun

Springfield Model 1822 flintlock musket.(Source)

Alternative titles for this post could be:

That ship has sailed!

The genie is out of the bottle!

Which part of the 2nd Amendment confuses you?

Anyhoo...

Back when I was overseas in Asia (a long, long time ago), I picked up a copy of this book -

(Source)

At the time I thought the work somewhat unremarkable. That Japan could ban firearms so completely isn't all that remarkable in my mind. A highly structured society with a warrior caste so powerful that the Emperor was a figurehead. The Shogun ruled the country. Particularly after the Tokugawa took over in 1603. Seems though that the book may be a complete fraud! (See this reference for a discussion of that. As one swallow does not a summer make, nor does one source absolute truth make, especially on the Web of World Wideness.)

Now let's say, for argument's sake, that the book Giving Up the Gun, is the absolute God's honest truth. Again, I think that somewhat unremarkable. "Why?" you might ask.

Alright, here's my thoughts on the subject.

Tokugawa Ieyasu had just fought, and won, a bloody war to crush the clans that stood against him. The Emperor offers him the title of Shogun, which he accepts. (Surprise, surprise. Incidentally, the book of the same name as Tokugawa's title, Shogun, tracks the events of that time fairly well. In case you're confused, Toranaga in the book, represents Tokugawa in real life. Just though I'd mention that.)

Now the battle which capped Tokugawa's victory was Sekigahara, sources are somewhat confused as to the number of dead (5000 to over 32000) but as the samurai might say, "Many heads were taken." This battle wasn't all swords, bows, and spears. Due to the need to raise more men, many units were equipped with the ever so inefficient match lock musket. Unwieldy, slow to load, and not that handy in battle. But you can train some poor schlub to shoot the thing a lot faster than you can teach him to effectively wield a katana, shoot a bow, or the proper techniques for slaying somebody with a naginata.

Schmuckatelli-san can be an ichi-ban killer in no time at all with a gun.

But once the battle is over, the sword bearing class (only the samurai were allowed to carry swords) didn't like the idea that Schmuckatelli-san and his mates might start getting ideas in their heads. Stuff like, "Why should we bow to the samurai? We have guns!"

Well no. The Shogun thought that that was a really bad idea. The war was over, why do we need guns? The samurai are all on my side now, they can keep the peasants in line. Back to the rice paddies Schmuckatelli-san!

I'm sure that after a few heads were lopped off, think back to this post, the rabble gladly turned in their guns.

I've had a few conversations in the past few days, many of which start with, "Why can't we just ban that stuff, make it illegal?" When I point out that doing so is actually prohibited by law -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They will sometimes get flustered. Some will bark that the 2nd Amendment isn't meant to allow the people to have military grade weapons. Others will say, "Well, something needs to be done."

Well, you can't fix this. Not if you collected every single damned gun on the planet and melted them all down. (And that would provoke a massive bloodbath, something the progs don't seem to understand.) Once all the guns are gone, people will kill each other with arrows, knives, swords, rocks, explosives, etc., etc., etc. Then someone else will realize that making simple guns, and black powder, isn't that hard. Well documented in books, I know. So what are they going to do, burn all the books as well?

The genie is out of the bottle, that ship has sailed. For a fine example of all that gun banning not working, I need look no further than Rhody's neighbor Connecticut. That fine bastion of left-leaning idiocy is very strict when it comes to firearms. The two Senators from that state are barking for the need for gun control.

They must be right, neh? I mean, Connecticut is perfectly safe, no problems at all, Sandy Hook notwithstanding, right?

Nope. The tragedy at Sandy Hook showed that making something illegal doesn't prevent it. It does prevent someone from shooting back though, think on that.

Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, all those murder capitals run by the Republicans...

Oh wait. All those cities are run by the progs. Very strict gun laws. Very high murder rates.

You can't fix this nonsense. Well, you can if the citizenry is well armed and trained in the use of firearms. But that's not what the progressives want. They want a cowed and compliant populace. Guess they should move somewhere else, right?

"But we must do something!" they cry. When there is nothing to be done, you do nothing, you don't do something ineffective.

Politicians have been doing that for centuries. Hasn't worked yet...