The UN, which is supposedly the catalyst of universal freedom, is holding this annual conference as a means to determine methods by which to disarm common people from the world over. They want to disarm them not only of justifiably-maligned assault rifles, but also of the pistols, rifles, and shotguns which are a welcome part of leisure pursuits and are vital to the protection of home and family.The guy was going good until this idiotic assertion. I agree with Asc's comments over at KABA. I've emailed the author, Bob Confer, and invited him to justify maligning militia-suitable arms here at WarOnGuns.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
“Justifiably-Maligned Assault Rifles”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I wrote that line despite my strong desire for gun rights. This reference is based upon my belief that assualt rifles have no role other than for warfare. These guns are not the target shooting type, nor are they useful for hunting purposes. They are designed for killing of human beings and the damage of war equipment and facilities. In many of life experiences I've witnessed their owners using them and/or revering them as "toys." A gun is a tool and deserves respect.
Yes, I'll admit to a point, that you have to wonder if we are going down the slippery slope: take away assault rifles and pistols are next...but, assualt rifles as a rule are a minority - and a distinct one at that - of all gun ownership.
Maybe you can sway me. In any debates I have in the newspaper or on the air against the gun-haters who despise guys like you and I, I have limited "ammo" by which to defend assualt rifles. I am open to your suggestions, beacuse as the editorial details, I beleive gun rights as a whole to be inalienable.
I will be on the air again (WLVL AM) in two weeks and I know this UN issue will be one of the topics used by callers.
I don't know what the Second Amendment, that is, the ultimate right to throw off tyranny is about, if not about the right of the people to resort to warfare to restore liberty. You can't do that without the tools.
I'm off to work and will check back in this evening.
Remember folks, light not heat.
Seems to me that warfare isn't always a bad (morally wrong) thing, or reserved only for governments. A little "warfare" would have been good against the thugs in New Orleans last year.
As to the "toys" comment, did he mean that they were careless about the four rules of gun safety? I received a gun from a friend who was an LEO, and once referred to it as a toy. My wife came unglued, until I explained that I knew it wasn't a toy in the real sense, and that I meant I would shoot it recreationally, as opposed to it being a tool of my friend's trade (it was a back-up gun.)
A minority of gun ownership? I have watched at Cabelas', and every other outlet where the dreaded assault weapon may be found,notably at gun shows. They are flying off the shelves. Good SKSs',AKs',M1 Carbines,and M1As',AR-15s'don't stand still for long, and the ammo is going out the door on hand trucks along with them. In the words of a sister I once knew,"Whos'zoomin'who?".1911s',.357s',even 9mm poodle shooters are still brisk. No role other than warfare? How about the old saw,"To find peace,prepare for war?" These United G!@#!$@!$# States are positively overun with lawbreaking govt.jackasses who are dying to give the whole circus away to the illegals, rapists, child molesters,murderers,thieves, and you name it, and you don't think we should have "assault rifles?" What would you like to have when TSHTF? Harsh language? Think everything is hunky dory and we'll resolve all our little problems politically? What's coming is going to make the Balkans look like Barney. Better a little twitchy than a rotting corpse,chief.
Good morning, Bob--
An "assault rifle" of the type to which you're presumably referring (presumably, because this is what is usually meant by the term assault rifle in the context of gun control) is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features and in some cases large-capacity magazines. The differences between an assault rifle and something like a Remington 7400 or 7600 are surprisingly small, and generally involve features are entirely innocuous (pistol grip) or that would be innocuous to anyone but a would-be tyrant (flash hider, bayonet lug, 20- or 30-round magazine).
Assault rifles do not need to be defended as having a role for other than warfare. Their value is self-evident, and they enjoy Second Amendment protection.
Bob, if I may...
Why do assault rifles have no role other than for warfare? They use cartridges of a size in common with other rifles, they're semi-autos like other rifles. What is it about assault rifles that makes you think they're unique?
And while we're at it, and more specifically, how is an assault rifle better suited for "killing of human beings and the damage of war equipment and facilities" than any other semi-automatic rifle of a similar caliber?
And even if you can provide meaningful answers to the above questions, I still come back to the purpose of the 2nd amendment: to keep the population armed in order to dissuade the government from tyranny. So even if you're correct on all points, I'd have to ask why that means we should be prevented from owning them.
200 million people were murdered,often after torture, by their own governments in the last century. Every one of these killing programs were "legal". What happened in Nazi Germany was legal, what happened in China was legal, every place a genocide or pogrom was undertaken the law of the slaughtering regime provided for it. Every single time.
Every single program of pogrom or genocide also had another common theme. They only occurred after the people of those regimes were disarmed, by law. Only after they were divested of the tools that were "only good for killing people". That theme has been a constant in every case of government sponsored murder since the beginning.
Those tools are useful for one other thing that you didn't mention and I have yet to hear from anyone of your opinion. That is simply, these tools are also very useful in STOPPING the killing of people.
People like you, who are trying to be reasonable and responsible, think that means compromising your right to defend your life and the lives of your children and loved ones. It is a form of paranoia to believe that the "powers that be" have noticed your reasonable attitude and therefore will know you are not a threat to them, and therefore will find no reason to harm you.
To most 'powers that be', we are livestock. Their guiding strictures are profit and power, not necessarily in that order. To lose sight of that and believe that your 'reasonable' attitude buys you extra consideration is as paranoid as believing everybody is out to harm you personally.
As you can tell, I tend to believe people that alter the definition of "shall not be infringed" are compromising principle due to fear of government and/or a society of people too morally weak to accept the responsibilities of free men. Ergo, in an attempt to appear reasonable they abandon reason and embrace expediency. It is expedient for the citizen in the short term. It delays consequences of irresponsibility, "usually". However, the greatest expedience is experienced by the state. The disparity of power works in their favor. All men are not good men, politicians are men. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that some will only be dissuaded from depredations on their citizenry by the likelihood of dire personal consequences. Nothing provides that barrier to unfettered abuse of power half so well as a well armed population.
I have asked this question of everybody, such as yourself, that advocates violating the constitution and especially the second amendment. "How does making a person helpless make them safer?" I now ask it of you.
Next question; "Why would anyone not wishing me harm demand I be helpless?"
Next quesiton; "If I promise to protect you, will you grant me the kind of power over your life that you advocate the state having?" If not, why not, I assure you I am more trustworthy?"
If you are not willing to do that, for a single one on one situation, why would you subjugate yourself to innumerable others that you don't know?
As an American citizen, you are the highest officeholder in the land. When you subjugate yourself to your servants you have lost citizenship and become a subject. That is what subjugate means.
The above is not anarchy, nor even disrespect for the state. We are all bound by the rules of our free society. They are written down as the supreme law of the land. That law is known as the constitution.
Why do you advocate breaking that law?
One of the most maligned of "assault weapons" is the ancestor to the AK47, the SKS, produced in dozens of countries around the world, reliable, accurate to a 2 1/2 inch group at 100 yards, inexpensive ammunition etc etc, is my favorite gun for hunting deer, rabbit and other medium sized game. The ballistics are virtually identical to the venerable Winchester 30.30 - So is there any reason that would logically call for banning this SEMI-automatic weapon that would not call for the ban of the more than 125 yr old design of the lever action winchester??
Of course not - one can compromise on things that are NOT a matter of Principle - but to compromise even a little on those is to be at best lacking in judgement, at worst in character. in other words "What part of "...shall not be infringed." are you too dense (dumb or stupid) to understand?"
i largely agree with most of the above comments, and would also like to ask mr. Confer exactly what he means by "assault rifle" in this context. the term is no longer well defined, after the infamous 1994 ban gave it a meaning quite different from the (already somewhat nebulous) one it used to have as a military term of art.
other than that, i only have to pick a nit. straightarrow, much of what happened in the third reich was _not_ legal, it simply wasn't prosecuted according to german law. the SS in particular had been placed explicitly above the law, and they acted accordingly. wikipedia's articles on WW2 history and the history of the SS have more details, or you can check out any good history book of the WW2 era at your local library.
I must disagree. It was legal. That legality is one of the reasons the war crimes trials were such slam dunks. The records were meticulously accurate. The Third Reich did have laws on the books not only allowing it but mandating it. As for history books on WWII I have a house full of them. Literally.
For example, the starvation of slave labor was never called "starvation of slave labor", however the law mandated levels of rations for the laborers that ensured their deaths by starvation in no more than two years time, and many lasted only weeks on reduced rations and heavy forced labor. There are many other examples. The "final solution" again was not called murder by Zyklon B (or other methods), but all the actions taken were in accordance with the laws of the Third Reich, hence the meticulous records, proving that the camps were in compliance.
You know its idiotic comments like yours that drive a wedge between gun owners. That whole "Since I don't own one of those 'assault weapons', I don't have to worry because they aren't going to come after my hunting rifle or shotgun” attitude is doing us more harm than good and they know it.
Justifiably maligned, indeed. You know you should probably do a little research on who's justifying the maligning before you publish such a comment. It would probably come as a surprise that the moonbats from the VPC and Brady bunch are the ones who are after this particular class of firearms. One of their stated goals was to demonize one class of firearms and get them banned in order to numb the public at large to even more bans in the future. As the VPC stated in 1988: "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
So answer me this. Every rifle I own is considered an ‘assault weapon’ as defined by the extinct AWB. How is it that other than the obvious cosmetic features, my SA M7A1 is any different from a Mini 30; both are semiautomatic in function, both have high capacity magazines, and both are made in the USA?
Because after they're done with the evil ‘assault weapons’ and those rifles that can shoot down airplanes, they're coming after the ‘sniper’ rifle. Which, coincidentally, looks a lot like the average hunting rifle.
Post a Comment