There’s talk about bring back the so called assault weapons ban (though not all Democrats in Congress are for that since they like being reelected). It would be pretty cool that if the Democrats lost out on passing it, then they’d have to give us real assault weapons — like fully automatic rifles. That would be awesome. I want a gun so cool that it will give bad guys heart attacks just looking at it.
Anyway, if the “assault weapon” ban comes back to Congress, the Republicans first job should be informing the public about what’s it exactly about and labeling anyone who tries to make people think it’s about machine guns a lying douche bag. What the Republicans should do is propose changing the bill’s name to something more accurate like “Dickless Wonders Scared of Loud Noises Bill”. Also, publicly quiz Democrats (and their friends in the media) about firearms to show they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Then beat the crap out of them. And it’s not like they can stop us because we have guns.
My wife’s son had a teacher a few years back who actually said that it’s called an AK-47 because it fires 47 rounds a second. If only.
beautiful. love the idea!
More like it only shoots straight 47% of the time.
I’m all for any plan that ends with “Democrats (and there friends in the media)” getting the crap beat out of them. Of course, I also think the average citizen should be allowed to own machine guns, gernades, laser weapons, and fighter jets too. I might draw the line at tactical nukes, but heck, if you can get your hands on one, I have no problem with you owning it.
When I first heard about this, I got angry. It is a dirty little secret that a large percentage of AR-15s that get sold, are private purchases by cops. A lot of agencies will not issue patrol rifles, but will allow any officer who owns one, and who can then qualify with it, to carry the weapon. The weapon has to be legally purchased, which includes tax stamps.
The only weapons that will be removed from the streets, will be those that are removed from patrol cars.
As a side note, after the weapons ban was lifted, I knew a bunch of cops who started buying 20 and even 30 round mags for their pistols. Most of these were kept tucked away in special kits, for dealing with active shooters, just like the ones at Columbine, or Virginia Tech.
I’d settle for a tank.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear
armsTANKS, shall not be infringed.”Hey, they’re just big guns.
Yes, because a Ruger 10/22 is a menace to society. Morons. Power hungry and tyrannical, but still morons.
“Dickless Wonders Scared of Loud Noises Bill”. HA! Love it!
I, for one, like loud powerful things. Big guns, Top Fuel dragsters, and especially when that one Blue Angel, who, while you’re ooohing at the Diamond Formation, sneaks around behind ya and makes a very low altitude high-subsonic earbusting pass right over your head that you never see coming. It’s awesome because it’s awesome and it makes little kids cry and fat ladies spill Diet Coke on themselves. God Bless America.
By the way, is Idaho a Class III state? Oregon is. Here we can own a pre-1986 full auto if we pay a $200/yr tax on it (and can afford the $10k or so price that people want for these weapons nowadays). We can also have silencers for the same fee. My Concealed Handgun instructor said that in Oregon a CCW permit holder could legally carry concealed a full-auto UZI with a silencer if the tax stamps were current! Oregon might be like Stupidly Blue on most issues, but don’t mess with our boomsticks! God Bless America!
Justification for the renewing of assualt ban is Mexico authorities are being outgunned by drug cartels that are said to be using fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers. The problem is the weapons are coming from the ranks of the Mexican army, venezuela et al.
No one in the U.S. is providing this weaponry because it is illegal (unless licensed) and virtually impossible to supply in the numbers that cartels are aquiring them.
Anything that can inflict injury is theoretically an assault weapon including rocks, bats, knives, sticks or a picture of Michelle Soetoro’s face.
Do not overlook hunting slingshots, air rifles such as the new Benjamin Discovery PCP, crossbows and bow and arrows. They require no registration, are quiet, and are fun to practice with, even in your back yard.
A .22 rim fire sold as Aquila Super Colibri is a primer only powered 20gr. bullet that is a must for counter revolutionaries. Fired in a pistol it will sound like a cap gun. In a rifle it is virtually silent. I can assure you that at 20-40 feet you do not want this fired at you. It will penetrate a 1″ board at 7-9 feet. Also, while prices are going up .22 long rifle ammo is still cheap (bulk boxes of 500+) and 1000 rounds doesn’t weigh any more than 60-70 rounds of 30-06.
Bottom line is the first amendment is protected by the second. On any given day the gun or weapon you own may be the only one you can get. Remember family members who didn’t bother buying a weapon will want to know if you have anything to spare. No matter what you own it requires practice. Target ammo is increasingly more expensive. Walmart has 30-06 or .270 ammo for $20 a box for 20. Those that learned math prior to the era of the calculator will see that is 1 buck a shot. Consider reloading, you can cut costs by 50-75%.
I missed out on the run up of 2 of the 3 precious metals, gold and silver, but have an adequate supply of the third, lead. If you need lead you can steal the wheelweights off your neighbors car tire, assuming he or she had an Obama sign in their yard. A two ounce wheel weight will make about 6 bullets for .38 special or .357.
innominatus says:
Or sitting at a dirt race track, watching a car do a wheel stand down the front stretch and listening to a guy talk about how much better NASCAR was when “Dale” was alive, all while a pair of A-10 Thunderbolts fly above. It would be even more awesome if the story ended with the Thunderbolts destroying a platoon of Russkie T-80s.
Marko, my mom & stepdad live about a mile up a twisty dirt road, so they have a golfcart to get down to the mailbox. When I snuck out there and applied #3 Goodwrench Chevy vinyl graphics all over it to make it look like Sr’s black car, he was the happiest NASCAR fan in the world. Which reminds me… He has a really nice Dillon reloading press and dies that he never uses anymore…Methinks it is about time to visit them again…
If I did that, it would have to be Dale Jarrett’s Ford Quality Care #88. Loved that car.
I want a vulcan!
Google this. “AA-12” If you want a weapon to scare the crap out of the bad guys. Look for the discovery channel video. Totally AWESOME weapon.
First of all, “assault” describes a behavoir, not a weapon.
Second, if I told Obama I only want to use my assault weapon to perform partial birth abortions, would his head explode?
While I know this is a humorous type site, this particular subject is serious. These dirtball kommunists are out to pull a stalin, hitler, mussolini trick on the U.S. These scumbags, like the lying piece of s**t, barry oscuma want to strip people of thier rights, make them vulnerable to the criminals, gangs, mexicans, and other type of total scum. They do not want citizens to be able to protect themselves from thier kommunism. These douchebags believe they are the kings, queens, and earls of the U.S. and have absolute power by divine right. Get on the phone NOW and make sure that scumbags like spectre, collins, snowe, reid, durbin, schumer. murtha, do not even get close to passing this abortion. Yes that craker hating, American hating crap fest won the election, but this is still America, and that pos cannot have my guns!
The anti-American kommunist scumbags (also known as the democrat party) want Americans to be vulnerable to gans, criminals and general other scum , so that they will be afraidd and give more power to the kommunists. The mexican government is corrupt immoral and useless, so it is up to good Americans to give up our guns so that the mexican gangs and criminals can feel safe while attacking us to give the kommunists more power.
If we were just to stack all of the courics in congress, our borders would be safe, and the lousy mexicans could stay home and we would not have to worry about them.
“Assault weapon” is a calculated and purposeful misnomer to plant fear in ignorant women and even more ignorant girly-men. None of the “military style” or “military looking” weapons listed in the 1994 ban were machine guns; those were unconstitutionally banned 60 years earlier. (Up until the 1930’s, when that rat-bastard Al Capone shot up Chicago and ruined things for the rest of us, an adult could have walked into a hardware store and bought a Thompson with little hassle). How cool is that?
We need to require every school kid to plink with machine gun at least once. When they experience the thrill for themselves there will be no future need for the lobbying wing of the NRA. “You always remember your first.”
🙂
This proposed ban is paternalistic, liberal do-gooder BS. Since the ’94 ban hit its sunset in ’04, has there been a rise in the use of these kinds of weapons to commit crimes??? It’s doubtful, because the weapons banned in ’94 only accounted for around one percent of all gun crimes before the ban!
You know how it went, some useless (aren’t they all?) gang member sprayed a house with a Tec-9 and the moonstream media got their panties in a wad and began sounding the drums for “responsible” gun ownership. *spit* Criminals are the most irresponsible people on the planet and they, by definition, don’t comply with laws.
Cops have told me that the majority of crimes are committed with 12 ga. shotguns and .38 Special pistols. These are neither very military nor assault weaponish–IMAO.
Agreed. He got me too.
Come after my weapons. I’LL SHOW you assault!
Semper Fidelis
They want to ban assault weapons? I’ll give you my chainsword and power fist when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
WHY DOES ANYONE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS????? Seriously, I do not understand the argument. Last time I checked, one does not need an automatic or semi-auto rifle to hunt. I’m not saying you’re wrong for disagreeing with the ban, just PLEASE GIVE ME A GOOD ARGUMENT. How I see it, less assault weapons=less assault weapon deaths. Police forces should, and will always, have assault weapons to protect citizens against the threat of big ass guns, so the protection argument goes out the window. There has never been a recorded instance where a law abiding citizen had successfully protected/defended him/herself using an assault weapon against someone else with a big ass gun… the scenario simply does not exist. (unless of course you count gang fights; but I think we all agree that this is the source of the problem) Maybe I don’t understand the argument (although I very much doubt it) so please educate me.
There’s a little something called HR 45 currently in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Judiciary Committee of the House. (go to http://thomas.loc.gov, search by bill number for HR 45). The highlights: Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Yes, that’s right. Let’s all give the attorney general a list of our guns and let him know if we move. I’m sure he just wants to keep his Christmas card list current. There’s more. Have a read and write to your congressman.
Meanwhile, HR 17, currently in the same subcommittee: Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009 – Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; and (3) the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
Darned straight.
To TRM:
Assault weapons are extremely useful when your lasgun battery is dry and there are still plenty of cultists to kill.
Nerdiness aside, I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of real-life examples of assault weapons used against people with guns, given the proliferation of assault weapons and makeshift assault weapons, such as knives, sauce pans and/or crowbars. And if you did think about it, it would make sense. A long-barreled shotgun would be difficult to use in confined space, while one needs little space to stab or jab or swing.
TRM:
You’re right about one thing: assault weapons aren’t needed for killing Bambi. I don’t hunt. I’m not opposed to anyone hunting, but it’s not for me.
Still, about your question, you hit on a reason yourself. But you must not have noticed. Let me preach on.
If I kept a policeman with an assault weapon around the house, maybe I’d agree with that last clause.
But I don’t.
Under your scenario, if I, a citizen, need protection against big ass guns, I’d have to call the police, then ask the folks with the big ass guns to wait until the police got there.
Not gonna happen. Instead, I’ll respond to extreme force with extreme force.
Forget the AA-12; for around $600 (at least BEFORE this craziness) you can get the AK-design semi-auto Saiga 12 from Russia with love. And there is an outfit that makes a 20 round drum for them.
Well hey! So called assault weapons are nothing more than semi auto rifles and they have been favorites for deer-elk-moose-bear hunting for decades in the form of Remington 742 and Browning BAR’s. An assault rifle uses the same action, adds a larger magazine capacity, come with scarry black finish and black stock. The military uses full automatic configuration and civilians generally use the traditional semi auto action. Technically, even a Ruger 10-22 can be classified as an assault weapon and there is the rub.
The purpose of the assault rifle ban is nothing more than a first step banning all guns and the whole concept of clasifying a type of gun as villain is comparable to the stimulus bill ending the recession. It isn’t realistic but marxist don’t care about realism they care about subversion.
An assault rifle on a battlefield functions to spray bullets like a garden hose but is also extremely accurate. For hunting purposes an accurate gun facilitates a quick and humane kill so it’s not inconceivable that an assault rifle would not be well suited. Having a 30 round clip hanging out the bottom of the magazine to snag on brush would not be my choice but then hunters could use a shorter 5 or 10 round magazine and that problem too is solved.
Depending where you live an assault style rifle might give it’s owner a sense of safety or comfort in the event of civil or mob disturbance but you could get that same sense from a 30-30 lever or a 12 ga shotgun. In most cases that is all any gun provides. If a .380 acp mouse gun turns your crank than it serves the purpose.
I live in a rural area and 5 people might be considered a mob so a bolt action for self defense would be realistic. If I lived in a huge metro area and had the potential to be in the middle of rioting to the point that police are hiding than I might feel better about larger magazines and lots of them.
Designating a gun as bad because of it’s looks is equivalent to saying a lighter is bad but a book of matches is OK. The purpose of the designation is the means to achieve a specific end.
You have to be careful not to be confused with the labeling. It’s purpose is but a first step, much as eating an elephant is done best one bite at a time.
TRM — The sothern Califonia bank robery —the police borrowed “assault weapons ” from a local gun store to kill the ak47 wielding a##holes 1964 I think it was the university of Texas ? A man went up the bell tower, started dropping people on campus–police borrowed weapons from local sportsmen to kill the a##hole in the bell tower. Two examples of the police depending on civilian weapons to “save the day” AND one more thing —nearly ALL small arms advancement in the 20th century came from civilian sportsmen. most important is they are in civilian hands to our governmemt under control.
To TRM,
I have spent almost my entire adult life working around police forces, large and small. A lot fewer cops will not have assault weapons, if this gun control act passes. Very few departments have the money to issue their cops assault weapons. A pistol, with three hi-cap magazines is generally it. Back up guns, and long guns usually have to be purchased out of pocket, and besides qualifying with the gun, then it must pass a weapons safety inspection, and be checked to make sure it is a legally purchased weapon.
While there are loop holes, called tax stamps, this still requires the officer to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars more to purchase the weapon. Cops are not exempted from laws, and are in fact one of the few groups of people who can be consistently forced into obeying them.
For every department that issues long guns, of any kind, there are probably four or five where you have to buy the things yourself. It is kind of like how teachers buy school supplies, only cops to get as much sympathy from the press, because are purchases are less politically correct.
In case you don’t think that cops need assault rifles, just know one thing. During Columbine, there were several incidents were officers had visual contact with the subjects who were shooting up the school, but could do nothing, because the punks were out of both pistol and shotgun range.
There will not be fewer guns of any kind in the hands of criminals. The last assault weapons band was proof of that.
Ok, but it’s a big essay and there may be science involved.
A self loading (semi-automatic) rifle loads the next round faster than you can do it manually. A modern military style rifle, which everyone insists on foolishly labeling an “assault weapon”, has better ergonomics than a classically styled hunting rifle. Taken together, this means a hunter can be back on target faster. This is important, because hunters strive to be ethical. Merciful. Unlike on TV, one bullet does not always kill the game animal stone dead in an eyeblink. Sometimes it takes several. Since the animal is usually walking or running, often at long distance away, through the forest full of trees, the hunter does not always have a lot of time in which they have a clear line of sight. Being able to shoot again faster means they can put a 2nd or 3rd or 4th bullet into the quarry before it gets away. Sometimes the first bullet is a miss since the wind pushes the bullets around. Wind can push them several feet off target depending on how hard the wind is blowing and how far away the target is. The self loading rifle lets the hunter get another shot off faster so that they don’t lose the opportunity to harvest the game. Faster follow-up shots allow for a more merciful kill.
Looked at from a physics perspective, a rifle is a cantilevered beam attached to a fulcrum. When you fire off a gun, the bullet comes out the front end and the gun pushes back at you. “For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction”; you can’t fool physics. Shooters call this reaction recoil. Recoil is not just a linear push because the axis of recoil is not centered on the fulcrum, the center point of the butt of the rifle against the shooter’s shoulder. This means that a certain amount of the recoil energy lifts the forward end of the rifle up. (the front end is called the muzzle) When the muzzle rises, the sights rise too: your eye line to the target is blocked temporarily. Modern military style rifles put most of the operating mechanism (gas tubes, operating rods etc) above the barrel. This means the barrel is lower relative to the butt: it is more centered relative to the fulcrum. This means that more of the recoil energy is used to push the gun backwards, and less is used to push the barrel up. Thus the gun moves less out of line; the shooter does not lose the eye line to the target. Because the barrel is lower, the sights have to be higher. This is why military rifles like the M16 have that big tall triangle on the front (it’s a high front sight) and handles on the top (which is just protection for the high rear sight). You can’t shoot what you can’t see, so less muzzle climb lets you reacquire the target faster for that follow-up shot if it’s needed. And a good hunter is always ready to do that. It’s part of the hunting ethos.
A military style flash hider does more than just diminish the fireball that comes out of the barrel behind the bullet. It directs the turbulent cloud of expanding gases away from the bullet. Believe it or not, the instant after the bullet leaves the barrel it is overtaken by this cloud of white hot roiling gas and must pass through it on the way to the target. Bullets get pushed around by air just like everything else, so lessening the amount of gases that form this cloud results in less bullet deflection: the rifle is more accurate. Better accuracy is always good.
The evil pistol grip hanging off the bottom of a military style rifle allows for a more natural hand position for the shooting hand. Classic rifles are designed so that the shooting hand holds onto the gun in a flexed position. This is not good for either precise control of the weapon or for avoiding injury when the shooting arm absorbs some of the recoil impulse. The pistol grip is simply a better way to hand onto the gun.
Better ability to hold onto the gun equals better accuracy. Better accuracy is always good.
Oh noes, horrible evil black rifles!! Even John Kerry admits that hunting is the act of crawling around in the bushes. Pretty wood costs a lot of money these days. Plastic is cheap. Go crawl around in the forest and your gun is going to get scratched up. Do you want to mess up your $5000 fancy wood stock, or would you prefer to scratch your $15 bit of plastic. And the plastic is more scratch resistant anyway. Plus, the plastic is not affected by the weather like wood is. Wood stocks swell and shrink when the temperature and humidity change. This means they contact the metal parts of the gun differently, and that means that the weather can change the point of aim. So inert materials like plastic make a rifle that is much less affected by climate: it is more accurate in different weather conditions. Better accuracy is always good.
Flat black finishes have very little glare. Glare can spook the animals you are hunting. Less glare equals less spook equals one less thing to blame your failed day in the woods on.
Short stocks, short barrels! That’s only so you can hide this bullet hose under your coat for robbing the 7-11!!!!111!! No. This is more ergonomics in action. People come in different sizes. There is a best fit for a rifle, just like blue jeans. Being able to adjust the distance from your shoulder behind the back of the stock to the trigger makes the rifle fit the shooter better, and that means better accuracy. Better accuracy is always good.
You can’t really adjust the size of a big solid piece of wood out in the field, but you can adjust some of those plastic stocks. In the summer you don’t need a thick heavy coat like you do in the winter, but that thick coat changes the distance from your shoulder to the trigger. That can make a difference. Short barrels? Try maneuvering an 8 foot 2×4 through the brush. Shorter is better. It’s just easier to swing around. It’s also less of a cantilevered beam, if you want to go back to that for a second. Shorter barrels vibrate at a much higher frequency than longer ones do, which means the muzzle moves around less while the bullet is traveling down the barrel. Less movement means greater accuracry. Better accuracy is always good.
The same adjustability concept applies to folding stocks. Sometimes the only shot you will get is from a cramped up position that you may not be able to get a full length classic hunting rifle into. This doesn’t give you better accuracy, but it can save the hunt. Plus shorter rifles are easier to store, and fit in cases that are less obviously gun cases. You know how crazy things are at the airport these days.
Hand guards! Once you fire a rifle, the barrel heats up. Fire it several times, and some of them get really really hot. Hot enough to burn you. Do you want to wrap your hand around that? How about slinging it over your shoulder, where that nice hot barrel is right next to your face? Hand guards make sense. They’re for your own protection.
It would not be hard to design a rifle that had a non-detachable magazine that held as many rounds as you wanted. Heck, there are millions of rifles out there just like that right now. It’s called a fixed magazine. Certain rifles like that are designed to use a thing called “stripper clips” which allow you to load 5,8, 10 rounds into the fixed magazine in just a second. Just as fast as you can swap magazines. So this isn’t much of an issue. There are even devices that let you reload a revolver in under a second. The detachable magazine issue is meaningless.
“High capacity”!!! Says who? One of the first repeating rifles ever made, the 1860 Henry, could hold 17 rounds. And the Henry was just the improved version of the 1848 Volition rifle that had almost the same capacity. That wasn’t “high”. It was “normal” for the design of that rifle. Even 161 years ago people knew that loading a gun was a pain in the tail, so they figured out how to fit in as many cartridges as possible. For 140 years this was not a problem. For the past couple decades this has been an issue, but it is another bit of smoke and mirrors because a fixed magazine rifle of lesser capacity can be reloaded nearly as quickly. In the real world it doesn’t make any difference at all. Plus, many states have hunting laws that limit how many rounds you can have in your gun to begin with.
So … let’s see. Black? Check. Plastic? Check. Handles? Check. Pistol grip? Check. Tall sights? Check. Flash hiders? Check. Semi-automatic? Check. Folding and adjustable stocks? Check. Hand guards? Check. Detachable “high capacity” magazines? Check. That about wraps it up for the layman’s definition of “assault weapon” and shows point by point why they make superior hunting rifles. Firearms have been evolving for the past 600 years. I expect them to keep right on evolving. “Assault weapons” are just the latest stage.
The only thing left is the “high powered” bit. I’ve got news for you: “assault weapons” are not high powered. As far as hunters are concerned, “assault weapons” are underpowered. To a hunter, a typical rifle is a “deer rifle”. They use cartridges that fall into the military category of “battle rifle” which is a whole lot more potent. But these are just average, typical cartridges. “Dangerous game” and “safari” rifles are the ones with real high power, culminating with “stopping rifles” designed to halt charging elephants. Stopping rifles are nearly as powerful as the ultra scary .50 BMG.
TRM
One last bit on that “high capacity” bit. Perhaps the first repeating firearm ever made was the Girandoni rifle of 1779. Not only was it .50 caliber, it held 20 shots!!!11!!!
How about that? A Revolutionary War era Assault Weapon.
They need to rename it “Anything that holds more than one bullet” ban.
Oh yeah, about nobody needing hi-cap magazines. Every law enforcement manual written on the subject basically says that if you do not use hi-cap magazines, then your odds of dying in a use of force situation goes up a heck of a lot. Is staying alive a practical reason to own something?
Drew458,
Every word you wrote is true. It could be debated, but it’s all true none the less. I would only add, the TRUE “NEED” for “assault weapons” is to insure a tyrannical, military style take-over by government forces NEVER happens on U.S. soil.
A man not willing to defend his liberties and ensure his own security deserves NEITHER!
This country was founded on one basic, central idea. Forget rights or freedoms, the one, underneath it all, down to the nitty -gritty, basic idea is personal property.
In England at the time, all property, whether land or belongings, belonged, ultimately, to the crown.
The Constitution laid down the law, so to speak, spelling out the rights we had as humans, not as citizens of this or that country, enumerating those right we have whether those in charge acknowledge them or not.
The Liberals and their idea of the Constitution as a “living document” abhor the idea that citizens have rights they have no control over, things they have no power to change. Things they have no power to grant to their friend or deny to their foes.
That is the entire base of Liberalism: power. Power to give or deny rights or privileges to those beneath them. Notice how the prominent Liberals are so against The Second Amendment and The Peoples right to own or carry firearms; and those same Liberals having well armed bodyguards and personal protection. Many of them have even gotten into trouble over carrying a pistol illegally, though nothing has ever come of it. ‘Ordinary people’ would be felons, Chuck Schumer (D- NY) isn’t even charged.
Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, The Clintons, The Kennedys, Barak Obama, Rosie O’Donnell, George Cloony, Sean Penn and Madonna are just a very few of the leading Liberals who constantly seek to deny rights to the ‘common man’ but yet demand those rights, demand special treatment for themselves as somehow better than everyone else. Do you think Brad Pitt would stand for the invasion of everything and anything personal about his life as ‘Joe the Plumber’ or Sarah Palin had to do? Where was Mr. Pitts outrage over how these people were treated? Where was his demand that their privacy be respected in the same way he demands his own?
If this country gives up its Second Amendment rights in any way, we may as well give up all the rest at the same time, rather than prolonging the agony of having them taken away little by little. Because each and every one depends upon the other, and removing one of the foundation stones will bring down the entire structure.
Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » Alternate Names for the “Assault Weapons” Ban
Nothing personal, but your premise is BOGUS. The right of people to bear arms was never about hunting; it was about keeping government power in check for generations to come.
In the context of 1781, it is obvious that the Founders understood the power of an armed citizenry to overcome tyranny (they won the revolution), or prevent future tyranny. (It is much easier for a government to exercise illegitimate/unconstitutional control over people if they are unarmed, or outgunned, by the police/military). Because the Founders foresaw the possibility that another revolution might become necessary they codified, as a right of the people, the right to bear arms. 🙂
If corrupt politicians, like in Mexico, used the police/military as a means of usurping authority, illegally enriching themselves, and keeping the people down, shouldn’t we have (as a last resort) the ability to rise up with something more effective that a hunting rifle? It’s just common sense.
Seriously TRM if you think American politicians are immune from the temptations of greed, corruption, power, and desperation, then you’re naive. Human beings are inherently selfish, greedy, and evil. As Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
From the tone of your question, it sounds like you might be against things like: The Patriot Act, national ID cards, electronic surveillance, wire tapping, the tracking of internet surfing habits, etc. If so, then why??? If we have nothing to realistically fear from the government, then why should any of these things be cause for concern? If you say that “there is room for abuse” (which is true) then you’ve answered your own question.
We need crime control not gun control. And, if two gang members kill each other in a shoot out, then society just got safer without any police intervention. 🙂
On a more basic note, who gave you permission to pass judgment on other people’s freedoms? If you don’t want to own guns then don’t. (But leave me alone). If you want to eat Slim-Jims instead of organic beans sprouts then go ahead. (But leave me alone). If you want to ride a bike instead or driving a hybrid then you’re free to do so. (But leave me alone).
The minute you start being judgmental about what people “need” or “don’t need”, how much money they should be able to make, or what kind of light bulbs and toilets they should use, then you’ve stepped over the line because it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! So, in a roundabout way, the answer to why we need assault rifles is: to keep freedom loving people safe from paternalistic, Socialist meddlers. Please find something to do with your time and leave the rest of us alone; we’re not hurting anybody.
Democrats hate guns because they cant own your lives when you own guns. They cant tell you what to do and when to do it, or what to say and not say if you have guns. Read about our founding fathers, they foresaw this because history repeats itself. They were told what to do, what to say, taxed to death, and how they could worship according to the “king” of England. Like I said, history repeats itself, so I joined the Marine Corps (1999-2003), and learned how to hold onto my guns. BTW I was born in Texas, and I was shooting by age 5. Pry them from my cold dead hands (someone had to say it). and TRM….grow a pair. I bet you have gel in your hair.
You can have MY gun when I place it in YOUR cold, dead hand.
“What do you make of it, Inspector?”
“Suicide, I suspect. Ruddy thing! Third one this week!”
“Are you saying the poor chap had a ‘Death Wish”?”
“Indeed.”
Pingback: Alternate Names for the “Assault Weapons” Ban | MT Pundit