Regarding current media trends in the anti-gun (or as I might say, the gun-bigot) camp, I keep hearing the same, worn out things. It irks me. It worries me. And I am tired of repeating myself. So I think I will respond to some of the recurring bullshit here, and save my breath for a while. Maybe just link a
QR code back to this page, and have it tattooed on my forehead. (Second thought: maybe just print it on a card.)
"Assault weapons like the AR-15 are destructive and should be banned."
Actually, the AR-15 (as with almost every weapon the media refers to as an "assault-weapon")
does not actually qualify for the definition. A true
assault weapon is, in general, capable of selectable
fully-automatic firing. That means that the weapon itself is capable of sustaining rapid,
repetitious firing, initiated by a
single trigger-pull by the operator. There are variants, such as burst or continuous modes, but the fundamental idea is the same.
A semi-automatic weapon never produces more than one fired shot for each trigger-pull by the operator. The rate of fire achievable by a semi-automatic weapon is typically much lower than that of a fully-automatic weapon.
In fact, today the the AR15 is specifically a
non-military version the venerable M16. But it looks almost identical, and can share a number of the basic components (stocks, grips, barrels, etc.) -
but not the select-fire capability. That's not trivial circumvent, and it's illegal to do so (and has been for a very long time).
One can argue that porn is destructive, and being delivered by home computers, often to the detriment of children - so then should home computers should be banned? I'm sure that would stop the "porn problem", too, wouldn't it?
"There's no reason you need to own a gun like ________."
Your rights, your liberties - are not based on your needs. There just isn't a logical connection here, yet somehow this phrase keeps coming out of the mouths of politicians. The fallacy of the "need" argument is endlessly frustrating. And it is manifest in other areas of our life nowadays, not just in firearms discourse.
You don't know how to feed yourself, so governments have decided to adjust your diet according to their liking ("
You don't need trans-fats, or super-sized soft drinks, or so much meat in your diet. Kids, eat more bean-sprouts and hummus -- even if you think it's gross like horseshit. Etc.")
You don't know how to choose a vehicle properly for yourself. ("
You don't need a gas-guzzling SUV or truck. You're killing the planet with carbon-emissions, destroying civilization by way of wrecking the environment.")
And although politicians in some states have decided that
you don't need to carry a weapon for self-defensive purposes, it is universally understood that those very same politicians travel with armed protectors or their own concealed weapons.
Some people are just more-equal than others, I guess.
Here are some other things that, likely,
you don't need.
- Contact lenses, Lasik surgery, etc. (glasses work fine)
- Swimming pools (such a waste of energy and precious water)
- Timely medical care (unless you're bleeding to death, stand in line, bucko)
- Physical stores (hey, shop online now)
- The US postal service (obsolete)
- Extensive knowledge about historical facts (disinformation)
- Offensive music or visual art (incorrect ideas or concepts)
- Excessive supplies of food, water, or other resources (depriving others)
- Telescopes, two-way radios, binoculars (what are you looking at?)
- Anything made by Apple (just get a PC, they work fine)
- A large house or fast car (wastes fuel).
- Adult entertainment (aka porn), in any form
- Recreational travel across the globe (wastes fuel)
- Colorful clothing - or anything except a single style of standard-issue clothing from the state. Prison clothes, actually. That would save a lot of trouble. Yes, everyone should wear only prison clothes.
- Snack-food, silly toys, videogames, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, boats or aircraft, too much furniture, pets, refrigerators, ultra-soft toilet tissue, over-the-counter medications.
- And the big one - a free market. Why go through all that trouble, when the government can just coordinate your needs in a more orderly, efficient manner? It's called central-planning, buddy.
"We need common-sense gun-control - NOW."
A popular phrase with the anti-gun crowd, but what does
"common-sense" actually imply? That's the magic sauce here. It can mean anything you like, depending on context - and where on the slippery-slope you are presently. I'd say we're already way, way beyond "common-sense" with firearm regulations today, and in some places so far beyond "common-sense" that using the term is not just vague and meaningless but downright inapplicable and stupid.
California, for example. If you're a criminal, California is a
great place for you. Nice weather, good scenery, the ocean, and lots of disarmed, gun-terrified potential-victims for you to choose from. Yes, taxes are ridiculous and housing unaffordable, but since it's virtually impossible for lawful citizens to get any kind of "permit to carry", the average guy on the street should be an easy target. That is, unless he happens to be another criminal, in which case he
could potentially shoot back at you if you go after him.
"Common-sense" to me means:
- It's wrong to kill people for fun or profit, and hey, it's been unlawful to do so - like - forever.
- Everyone has an inherent and natural right of self-preservation. This right descends not from government's generosity, but is axiomatic and immutable.
- All citizens capable of rational reasoning should be permitted to carry weapons of their choice for protection, without being forced through convoluted bureaucratic machinations a priori.
- You should be able to own whatever gun you want and can afford.
That's about it.
"Pro-gun advocates, like the NRA, are maleficent lunatics dominated by the gun industry."
So what is implied then, is that only gun-bashing, anti-freedom leftist organizations have valid points to make? Where have we heard this reasoning before? Sounds very familiar. When you don't have a solid case with facts, your best strategy is to discredit your adversary before he can convince a majority of the correctness of his position. This is the recurring
modus operandi of the left; using general ignorance of the facts to their advantage, to advance their own causes rooted in their own ulterior motives.
Ask yourself this:
- Who's working to TAKE liberties/property from you?
- Who's working to PREVENT others from TAKING liberties/property from you?
"Only the police, and military, should possess firearms."
Do you believe the police will be able, or even required, to save you in every crisis situation? Do you trust your government fully and completely to act in your best interests, forever more? How are they doing in this vein? I am always shocked to hear anyone state their desire to be a disarmed and defenseless citizen.
If your daily concerns look like:
- What are my Facebook friends up to?
- Where's the closest Starbucks right now?
- What's happening on Jersey Shore?
- What can I do to help stop global warming?
- Should I buy another pair of shoes today, since they're on sale?
- Should I be recycling more than I am now?
- What's the latest music on iTunes?
- Where are my missing socks?
Then you probably aren't worrying about:
- In an emergency, could you protect yourself and family?
- How can $16 trillion ever be repaid, to anybody, anywhere?
- Which freedoms are really guaranteed to you?
- What can be taken away from you against your will?
- What are your fellow citizens plotting to do regarding your future?
- What does government have planned for your future?
- Am I condemning subsequent generations to ever greater subjugation at the hands of a merciless governmental monstrosity?
- When I vote in an election, what am I actually voting for?
"Hi-capacity magazines should be banned."
Actually, what's being referred to here, most often, are "standard-capacity" magazines. The anti-gun crowd merely wishes to "dumb-down" the hardware below the level that it was designed to be; They've come up with this magical "
10-round" figure which holds some special significance for their narrative as a "reasonable" magazine-capacity limit. Maybe it's because that's how many fingers/toes they have. Maybe they want 5-rounds per hand, if you're shooting with both hands.
I've personally never understood this thinking at all, since switching mags can be a very fast operation without much practice. Again, if those advocating such things had the first clue about what operating a weapon is like, with first-hand experience, they might just understand how moronic their claims sound to the rest of us.
It's essentially as ridiculous as mayor Bloomberg's high-capacity (20-oz) soda ban in New York - resulting in much pain-in-the-ass for the public, which now just buys twice as many bottles to get what they desired in the first place.
So in summary, my message to the gun-grabber crowd: I'll leave you alone, but you must afford the same in return. Find another hobby. Go enjoy your marijuana bong and the occasional abortion or whatever you do. Leave me out of it...
