The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military style weapons”

posted at 8:51 am on December 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

In the first two entries of this four part series – A Violent Society and The Black Hole of Mental Health – we examined the first pair of the three part “reasonable discussion” currently being offered by those seeking new and immediate gun control laws. They involve the nuanced, oh so helpful sounding approach to curtailing mass shootings such as we witnessed last week in Newtown, Connecticut. The third leg of this particular stool will be the heaviest lift for those still concerned with their civil liberties, so I advise you to fasten your seat-belts before we proceed. Some truths can be hard to speak during such dark times, but their veracity is not diminished one bit. Today we will discuss the argument being put forth by these concerned citizens wherein they assure us that they love the Second Amendment… they don’t want to deter your right to go hunting… they simply don’t see why you should legally be entitled to “Military Style Weapons.”

But first, another brief update on the evolving media circus surrounding this rapidly building tsunami. If you don’t think that you’ll be facing the sympathy card on this front, do not be deceived. Just look who the Democrats are lining up to make their case.

During an emotional news conference announcing their new focus on gun control, House Democrats put forth several members personally affected by gun violence, including Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), who took a seat in Congress after being shot and wounded alongside former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Jan. 2011; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was killed and son severely wounded in the December 1993 shooting on a Long Island Railroad commuter train; Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), who has had to use a wheelchair since age 16 after being wounded in an accidental shooting; and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), whose 29-year old son was killed in a 2009 shooting.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) would like us to simply skip the entire. bothersome legislative process and have you just turn in your guns now. For a bit of a palate cleanser, you’ll want to check out Joel Engel, who touches on some of the topics we’ll cover today.

Let’s press on to the final argument which we shall hear in the days, weeks and months to come. They’re only trying to eliminate…

Military Style Weapons

This is an argument which is already being picked up not only in every media outlet, but by normally reliable conservative voices. It breaks down into a neat, repeatable refrain in three parts which can be parroted as follows:

1.We aren’t trying to stop anybody from hunting! We support your right to hunt!
2. And besides, we’re not talking about coming and taking your guns. We just don’t want them sold any more.
3. All we’re saying is that we don’t want these military style weapons around. They’re only good for killing people!

Taking these in order, it is first important for our conservative thought leaders to loudly enunciate one very important point about the hunting angle. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. So when you hear this, you need to shut it down immediately. First off, the Bill of Rights says nothing about hunting. It talks about the possible need for a militia, which has since been affirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court, particularly since anyone might – in the darkest of possible times – be once again called upon to stand up for the survival of the nation. This is a subject which I have been lax on in the past, as several readers have pointed out on occasion. My only point by way of defense is that hunters and sportsman’s associations have long been such a natural fit with second amendment supporters, and beneficiaries of the work by the NRA and like minded groups. Hunting shouldn’t even be a government issue. It remains a mystery to me why any of us need to pay a fee and obtain a license to hunt, fish or trap on “the King’s land” to feed and clothe our families. (But that pet peeve of mine shall remain a discussion for another day.) This is not a hunting issue.

These same, soft spoken voices will, as I noted, also assure you that nobody is coming to take your guns. Perish the thought! They simply want to restrict the methods of obtaining them. limit access in increasing fashions and essentially stop the selling of whichever types of weapons and accessories they deem unacceptable in the future. This, to me, rings as hollow as Republicans who argue for reforms to Social Security and Medicare, but begin the discussion by saying, “Of course, we’re not going to touch YOURS.” That’s a dishonest approach, though it may be politically expedient.

But were I a liberal falling into such a category, I would immediately be wondering… what happens to my children and grandchildren? Second Amendment proponents should demand the same answer. Even if you have your guns today, what about the day when you take your son or daughter out to purchase their first firearms? The long game here is simple: we may not be able to get rid of all the guns today, but if we stop their sale, eventually all of the weapons will drop out of the system. This isn’t a fight for what you have today, but rather a stand against what happens to future generations.

The final point is, as I warned earlier, the hard one. It will be argued at the same time as they show the mourners standing over the tiny caskets of the mass shooting victims and the tearful mourners. How could you – or anyone – be such a monster as to want a weapon which is essentially only fit for killing people at a time like this? I will risk the sin of self aggrandizement here by quoting… me, from an article I published shortly after the Colorado shooting this summer. Why would you demand the right to own a gun primarily suited to killing human beings?

There may yet come a day when you will have no choice.

I know.. I know.. heresy. But I submit the following premise to you. America was founded by and remains populated by people who, in many cases, realized that an armed population might be vital to our survival. There are three basic scenarios which are likely on the minds of many people, presented here in (hopefully) descending order of likelihood.

1. Some people have concerns that, in a very unstable world, things might eventually go completely pear shaped and the social fabric could be in danger of collapse. Nobody wants this and I’m not saying it’s even likely, but if that is one concern of yours, you’re going to have to be ready to defend yourself, your family and your property. And not against deer.

2. There has been a constant undercurrent of worry that the United States might still, some day, be invaded by a foreign power using a land invasion rather than a nuclear attack. And if such invaders overwhelmed the troops and the National Guard, there would still be an armed force of tens of millions of Americans to deal with. More than a few people wiser than me have opined over the years that this is a large reason nobody has tried to invade us.

3. The last, worst, and – I hope – most unlikely scenario is one which persons as “radical” as Thomas Jefferson fretted over. And that is the possibility that a vastly swollen and powerful central government could forget and abandon the promises made to the people and violate the fundamental rights promised to them. The Founders came from a land and a time when that was hardly science fiction. And while I see no indication that such a thing is imminent today, an armed populace remains a constant reminder to those in Washington that, should they ever dare go so far as to employ the military to suppress their citizens and break those promises… You only rule by the consent of the governed. We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

No, there is no reasonable person who wakes up in the morning hoping for the chance to kill another human being. But in times of war, ultimate disaster, chaos or – God forbid – the betrayal of those in power, killing another human being may, sadly, be part of the only path to survival.

Yes, that’s a hard argument to make during the horrible times shortly after an event like Newtown. But it’s an argument which, in my never very humble opinion, passes the test of time and serves as an important reminder. And before smiling faces with tear reddened eyes come during our darkest hours to pilfer your rights you may need to stand up and hold these ideas in mind, though the popular tide shall identify you as the monster who doesn’t care about the victims.

This is precisely the moment which many gun grabbing enthusiasts have been waiting for. A horrible tragedy has seized the emotional heartstrings of the nation and plucked them loudly. A recent election has delivered not only a Senate slightly enlarged with liberal activists, but a formerly cowed President now unfettered by fear of another turn before the electoral wheel. Previously reliable defenders of Second Amendment rights are making the rounds on every network, suddenly willing to compromise – just this once on a few egregious points – and give ground to those who dream of a gun free society. It’s going to be an enormous headwind to fight, and even I wonder if there will be enough people to man the ramparts on this one. But have no doubt… the fight has been brought to us and it will roll out in a matter of days, not years. We have compromised. We always compromise. But if sales of a list of weapons which even includes semi-automatic handguns are about to be curtailed, (even as sales skyrocket) a line in the sand needs to be drawn.

Tomorrow we’ll conclude this series with a discussion of what you can expect as the rest of this tale plays out, as well as what we might do. Until then, sleep well. You’re going to need the rest.

Related:
The new horizon of gun control, Part 1. A Violent Society
The new horizon of gun control, Part 2. The black hole of mental health
MSNBC host Chuck Todd on gun rights: “That’s a different America”
Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.
The missing link on gun control

Catch up with me on Twitter if you’d care to continue the discussion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Perhaps the gun control folks would like to publish a list of guns they would allow thr rest of us to buy…

It would be nice to know their position on this…

Khun Joe on December 20, 2012 at 8:54 AM

beware of incremental-ism, to see what that is look at smokers.

RonK on December 20, 2012 at 8:57 AM

“Shall not be infringed”

stackedeck on December 20, 2012 at 8:58 AM

****************** RED ALERT PART DEUX **********************

LIVE STREAMING:

Senate Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi

Washington, DC
Thursday, December 20, 2012

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee are holding the first of two Congressional hearing today on the September 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The State Department’s highest ranking foreign service officers, William Burns and Thomas Nides, is testifying before the Committees today. They are answering questions regarding a new report by an independent panel assessing the Benghazi attack.

Accountability Review Board Chairman Ambassador Tom Pickering and Vice Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen held a press briefing Wednesday at the State Department to review the results of their investigation into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Four Americans were killed in that attack, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Congress is investigating whether the State Department denied a request for extra security at that outpost earlier in the year and what actions were taken in the moments after the attack began.

Yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) conducted a closed briefing on the attack. He heard from an accountability review board investigating the details of the conflict.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was initially scheduled to testify before both Committees but will not attend. She was diagnosed with a concussion last week after fainting at home.
=============================================================

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Hearing-on-US-Consulate-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737436726-1/

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 8:55 AM

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Gee, can I comment, or is my moniker banned?

M240H on December 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

In my mind the founders were saying that weapons held by a foot soldier are weapons a citizen can own because they never know when they have to become a foot soldier. So a case can be made that owning a tank, not foot soldierish.
I often wonder what the people who called George Bush a hitler thought would prevent someone truly evil from a coup. What does the left believe about this? They use very hateful language and you would think the natural impulse would be – I want to be armed to protect myself from the lies of George.

I do not own a gun. I respect them too much as a pretty careless individual (TMI). BUT i rely on good RESPONSIBLE citizens to have nice little caches of weapons. The gun safe is the last bastion of freedom for any nation. One that freedom of speech and the other constitutional rights will hopefully make a dusty one.

RutRoh on December 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

The Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt.

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Obama Gun Control Press Conference results in twitterverse gun fight

Tweeters upset MSM didn’t ask any gun control questions

BobMbx on December 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I’m sure that they are just aching for a “military” style ban. What would that be? Well some say we should be restricted to muzzle loaders because that was what was around back when the second was created. Well the war that founded this country was fought with muzzle loaders so wouldn’t they be “military” style? The MS ban just opens the door to banning all firearms because at one time or another they were all used by the military. Now if they want to say they are only banning weapons currently in service with the US military or even any military then they may have something worth doing because a very large chunk of those are already banned so it really wouldn’t impact firearms in this country very much.

Frank Enstine on December 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM

beware of incremental-ism, to see what that is look at smokers.

RonK on December 20, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Heck, RonK, look at everything that has happened in our society in the last 30 or 40 years! America is one big, honkin’ mass of incrementalism!

NavyMustang on December 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM

beware of incremental-ism, to see what that is look at smokers.

RonK on December 20, 2012 at 8:57 AM

OR, trans fats, OR “large sugary drinks”, OR speech (as in the “hate variety”), OR land usage rights, OR EPA regulation strangulation, OR………..

NY Conservative on December 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM

We have compromised.

And, in so doing, you have given up your right. You now live under permissions!

OldEnglish on December 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM

But were I a liberal falling into such a category, I would immediately be wondering… what happens to my children and grandchildren? Second Amendment proponents should demand the same answer. Even if you have your guns today, what about the day when you take your son or daughter out to purchase their first firearms? The long game here is simple: we may not be able to get rid of all the guns today, but if we stop their sale, eventually all of the weapons will drop out of the system. This isn’t a fight for what you have today, but rather a stand against what happens to future generations.

I have to strongly disagree with your logic on this….you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

SS, Medicare, Welfare, etc…are things that are provided by government through taxing.

The 2nd Amendment or any right in the Bill of Rights are not some gift from government to us.
They are ours.
Our right to have a gun does not come through the sweat and labor of another.

Social programs are only gained by taking from one and giving to another.

You need to really rethink your reasoning on this.

MityMaxx on December 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. So when you hear this, you need to shut it down immediately.

Nail head, meet hammer.

petefrt on December 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM

As a follow up to my previous post.
Doing like you did is like John Boehner negotiating with himself.

You are splitting hairs on things, and when you do this, you are giving the left and their arguments more credit than they deserve.

DO NOT DO THIS.

Rights are Rights.

When you confuse rights with welfare programs you have given up an intellectual argument and you fall into the trap of social division.

MityMaxx on December 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Perhaps the gun control folks would like to publish a list of guns they would allow thr rest of us to buy…

It would be nice to know their position on this…

Khun Joe on December 20, 2012 at 8:54 AM

muzzle loading black powder if I had to guess, might as well have a pocket full of rocks

NY Conservative on December 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I often wonder what the people who called George Bush a hitler thought would prevent someone truly evil from a coup. What does the left believe about this?
RutRoh on December 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Well we have a soft coup going on right now. The thing I see, and I’m generalizing here, is that conservatives respect laws and liberals do not. The coup happening before our eyes is okay with them because it’s them doing it. A coup by conservatives wouldn’t happen because it’s against the law. You have to remember that liberals are all about projection and they just knew Bush would pull a coup because it is exactly what they would and are doing.

Frank Enstine on December 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Marxism isn’t a uniquely Kenyan trait but Barack Obama is a uniquely Marxist Kenyan

Slade73 on December 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM

First off, the Bill of Rights says nothing about hunting. It talks about the possible need for a militia, which has since been affirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court, particularly since anyone might – in the darkest of possible times – be once again called upon to stand up for the survival of the nation.

This truth makes Leftists really, really uncomfortable.

visions on December 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM

The message here is if you’re a democrat, you can leverage your victimhood into political power.

“including Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), who took a seat in Congress after being shot and wounded alongside former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Jan. 2011; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was killed and son severely wounded in the December 1993 shooting on a Long Island Railroad commuter train; Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), who has had to use a wheelchair since age 16 after being wounded in an accidental shooting; and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), whose 29-year old son was killed in a 2009 shooting.”

SAMinVA on December 20, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The establishment fears the 2nd amendment and therefore defines it for you. “We’re not trying to take away your right to hunt.”

Whoever says garbage like this needs to be schooled. “Conservatives” that are capitulating to the gun control crowd need to be reminded that the 2nd amendment is intended to guarantee the rest.

freedomfirst on December 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I pulled Obama’s finger and he farted stimulus spending

Slade73 on December 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM

The the gun is civilization:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

MityMaxx on December 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM

The US also leads the world in deaths from falls from ladders.What do we do about that?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_fal_on_and_fro_lad-mortality-fall-ladder

docflash on December 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I notice that the lib Congresscritters avoided bringing out witnesses who were saved by someone having a gun at hand to use against a criminal.

Liam on December 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM

MeanWhile,back in/at the Lone Star State……

54m The Associated Press The Associated Press ‏@AP

Teachers carry concealed weapons in tiny Texas town as national school safety debate heats up: http://apne.ws/T9dYMh – VW

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The Second Amendment was created specifically to enable the citizenry to “hunt” tyrants, if need be.

viking01 on December 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Back n the 1990s, the old Science Fiction Age magazine used to have a monthly “roundtable” feature in which SF writers would debate social issues that SF had covered in one way or another.

One month, the debate was on gun control. And one writer (Greg Bear, IIRC) proposed this;

The government designates a single type of firearm, say the typical “deer rifle”, that will be forever immune from any form of registration or confiscation. This ensures that in event of government “running amok”, the citizenry will always be able to resist with the equivalent of a lot of standard military-type, non-autoloading, repeating weapons (with effective ranges a bit better than the average assault rifle used by military and police forces since the 1940s).

In return, the government gets to not only register everything else, but insist on licensing, competency tests equivalent to driver’s license tests, and liability insurance for anyone who wants to own “any other gun”. Want to own an AR-15? Apply for a license, pass a test, and show proof of insurance.

As I recall, even this didn’t fly with the likes of Feinstein and Lee. Because it was about the time that issue of SFA arrived in my mailbox that they started calling telescopic-sighted hunting rifles “sniper weapons” in the debate over what “other weapons” should be covered under the Assault Weapon Ban, and Holder began trying to use the AWB against reproduction lever-action Winchester 1873s on the grounds that their (non-detachable, tubular) magazines could hold more than ten rounds… of .44-40 Winchester.

The problem with trying to come up with “reasonable compromises” is that the other side is not reasonable, and sees any “compromise” as simply one more step down the road to total disarmament of the citizenry, most likely on pain of death.

(They oppose capital punishment for murder, but demand abortion on demand. I doubt they would flinch at executing anyone who violates a law as “sacred” to them as a total ban on civilian firearms.)

Clearly, you cannot “reason” with someone who insists on any compromise being defined as “Do it my way- or else“.

clear ether

eon

eon on December 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM

these luciferian charlatans would start murdering their opposition the day after they disarmed us.

tom daschle concerned on December 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Clearly, you cannot “reason” with someone who insists on any compromise being defined as “Do it my way- or else“.
eon on December 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Exactly right.

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM

muzzle loading black powder if I had to guess, might as well have a pocket full of rocks

NY Conservative on December 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM

At least until they saw and heard their first .50 muzzle loader go off; the smoke, the flame, the concussion.

After their fainting spell passed the muzzle loaders would be on the block too.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Just got into a totally innapropriate workplace shouting match with an older lib co-worker. Someone mentioned armed guards in schools and he screamed that’s ridiculous. Do we want our children to grow up seeing guns every day? I shouldn’t have taken the bait, but I then said, yes, guns are part of the bedrock of who we are as a nation. These gun-free zones are why these tragedies keep occuring. Screw the armed guards, arms should be present in schools and workplaces, concealed-carried by citizens trained and comfortable in their use so that we can stack the deck against these sociopaths. Well, that sent him into a tizzy, claiming I’m a fascist and want a police state and blah, blah.

I’m a manager, but MY manager had to step in and shout us back to neutral corners. Not my smartest move, but I hear so much of this clap-trap, and I know they’re going to use this tragedy to further chip away at our rights and whatever they do will have no bearing on public safety, and will do nothing to stop the next lunatic.

Sigh…

CaptFlood on December 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Instead of calling them “military-style weapons” we should call them “guns with cosmetic plastic attachments”. Because that’s all “assault weapons” really are – semi-automatic rifles made up to look like full-auto military weapons.

If you showed a Garand rifle as an example of a semi-automatic weapon, instead of a Bushmaster, people might begin to understand that a ban on guns with plastic attachments isn’t going to do anything for public safety.

hawksruleva on December 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM

In the meantime, as the politicians are standing on 20 tiny caskets to further their gun-grabbing agenda…..

A man in Strasburg, VA, walked into an elementary school with a 2×4 with “high powered rifle” written on it. He was met by the principle and another administrator. Presumably he was making a statement about school safety but the point was made IMO. He is being treated as the bad guy for scaring the staff.

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 9:30 AM

As a friend of mine once demonstrated, I ask this question to the “military-style” gun-grabbers – would you rather be hit with a 7.62x39mm full metal jacket round (for those of you not familiar, it’s what the AK-47 fires) or a .30-06 jacketed hollow point hunting round? Hint – even if the .30-06 round were a Geneva Convention-legal FMJ round, it hits with a lot more punch than the AK-47 round fired from a gun with the same barrel length.

Steve Eggleston on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If you showed a Garand rifle as an example of a semi-automatic weapon, instead of a Bushmaster, people might begin to understand that a ban on guns with plastic attachments isn’t going to do anything for public safety.

hawksruleva on December 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Show them a Remington 7400, or better yet a Ruger 10/22.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I want weapons, obtained legally, that match the firepower of any non-military law enforcement agency. Period.

Mr. Arrogant on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Sen. Schumer: The NRA Was Taken Over By ‘Militant People’
Dec 20 2012
************

VIDEO

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2012/12/20/sen-schumer-nra-was-taken-over-militant-people

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Muskets used to be military style weapons.

Hey.. will law enforcement give up their military style weapons? Why not?

JellyToast on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If you showed a Garand rifle as an example of a semi-automatic weapon, instead of a Bushmaster, people might begin to understand that a ban on guns with plastic attachments isn’t going to do anything for public safety.

hawksruleva on December 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Why not produce them in pink and push them as necessary for womens’ safety? Any filthy gun-grabbing commie that wants to ban them could be accused of not caring about the safety of women.

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 9:32 AM

they simply don’t see why you should legally be entitled to “Military Style Weapons.”

“Military style weapons” — the latest buzzword-phrase from the Left. We should all anticipate hearing and reading it ad infinitum in the next several weeks and months.

It’s inexact as it is specifically nonsensical, illiterate. But as a phrase, it “means” something entirely other than the individual words: it’s casting a bad, bad shadow over “military” and “weapons” and pushing the psychology that “guns kill people” (so should therefore be eradicated, like “war”).

Obama is fond of using and repeating it (yesterday’s press conference, for example) as are now most his useful fools in Congress and all the Left-helper newsletters and sites.

Challenge it because this is another incidence of the Left speaking in nonsense terms but “saying” something even more nonsensical in all capacity except as propaganda: to frame “weapons” (they mean “guns”) as “military” and therefore in need of eradication.

Because ALL weapons are “military style” as they are also ALL “assault” type whatevers. Anything used to assault anyone else is an “assault weapon” and government deployment of personnel with their tools is what “military” is about as to what it’s purpose is.

This is Leftwing psychological warfare here, “military style weapons” — it’s framing guns, all guns, any guns, as a dreaded combat enemy out to get others. Next it’ll be hatchets. And bows and arrows. And knives. And camouflage. And then cook stoves and tents and then it’ll be…

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:33 AM

This is Leftwing psychological warfare here, “military style weapons” — it’s framing guns, all guns, any guns, as a dreaded combat enemy out to get others. Next it’ll be hatchets. And bows and arrows. And knives. And camouflage. And then cook stoves and tents and then it’ll be…

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:33 AM

AND, this is important psychologically, that phrase — “military style weapons” — frames “weapons” in the context of GOVERNMENTALLY COMMANDED. Meaning, “military” as in, deployed by government, ordered by government, doing the bidding of government and…under the control of government.

As Obama “commands,” he can then RECALL and order “stand down” to “military style weapons”…this is really ugly Leftwing propaganda phrasing, “military style weapons,” it places “weapons” in the ownership of GOVERNMENT. And thus, they can be “shut down”.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM

CaptFlood on December 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Ever hear anyone complain about armed guards at banks? Armored cars?

Me neither.

Protect money? GIVE US GUNS!

Protect children? Meh.

BobMbx on December 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The Department of Education has placed an official request for bids to fill an order of 27 tactical shotguns.

Yes, the Department of Education is buying riot shotguns.

The full purchase order is available online, here.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14? – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14? LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

The Department of Education is armed with the same guns that would send Feinstein running for the barf bucket.

Look at the words, “existing inventory” of riot shotguns? Ghost ring sights, speed feed stocks, combat training?

And I’m supposed to trust this government when they come for MY guns?

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Unless the Democrats are handed a major-major electoral defeat they will continue to replace the real liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights with their new made-up rights. We will soon be facing the practical dissolution of our Republic or civil war. The speed of gathering events will shock the great majority.

claudius on December 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM

In February of 2012, the IRS ordered 60 Remington Model 870 police 12 gauge pump action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Unit.

…In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls.

(August, 2012) The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S.

It’s that “enemies, foreign and domestic” thingy that has us Americans, who are paying attention, a little worried.

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM

What part of infringe upon don’t these dolts like Ms. Lee understand? Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a rule. They could also come out against camo colored because it’s military, too. See definition above. Until the amendment is amended, they can blather until their last breath. Anything they change is unconstitutional. Actually, you can hunt with the AR15.

Kissmygrits on December 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM

What the ‘talking heads’ don’t seem to realize (or perhaps they know all too well) is that the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting, it’s about providing protection from a tyrannical, over-reaching government.

If the government has automatic weapons and all the citizenty has is bolt-action, single shot .22s, the government can (and will) do whatever it pleases because they know there is no way for the citizens to rise up and protest. The Second Amendment ensures that the other rights will endure.

One of the advantages of the ‘military-style’ AR-15 rifles is that they use the same magazines and bullets that the Military and Police use…meaning that the billions of rounds of ammunition recently purchased by non-military, non-LEO government agencies will be available for use by the citizens in the event of a government ‘over-reach’.

Quite frankly, the solution of the gun violence is to make it mandatory that every able-bodied man and woman in the United States acquire, train, and carry a weapon at all times. With properly trained and armed civilians, there will be no muggings and no mass murders. Granted, there might be an occasional misfire or passion killing, but that will happen anyway. (What’s more merciful; a quick bullet in the head, or a long, drawn-out, physical beating by an enraged spouse?)

Guns don’t kill, just like knives don’t kill, baseball bats don’t kill, cars don’t kill, and fists don’t kill…it’s the human operator who kills.

xmanvietnam on December 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM

We will soon be facing the practical dissolution of our Republic or civil war. The speed of gathering events will shock the great majority.

claudius on December 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Eh, how bad could it be? It’s not as if Europe devolved into the Dark Ages after Rome suffered this same fate.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Sen. Schumer: The NRA Was Taken Over By ‘Militant People’
Dec 20 2012
************

VIDEO

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2012/12/20/sen-schumer-nra-was-taken-over-militant-people

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

WACO: Democrats responsible for a very, very ugly travesty from all perspectives.

Ruby Ridge: Democrats responsible, again.

Oklahoma City: Democrat perpetrator, Democrat conditions…

On and on…so many of these violent deeds are the responsibility of DEMOCRATS, Liberals, people or “militia” gone wild. Democrats, Liberals.

The NRA has it’s excitable moments but in general it is a very, very well thought out and effective lobbying organization as also it’s members: well trained, law abiding, law promoting, a whole lot of law enforcement involved, too.

No one needs any more evidence that Schumer is well known for his public emotional excess and outbursts, and statements as there. Like many Democrats, they are out of control emotionally, psychologically, if not ethically and morally and a good chunk of their methods is to act so paranoically as to blame “Republicans” and “Conservatives” for their, the Left’s, own conditions.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:43 AM

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM

What are they afraid of, I wonder? And why?

I think I’ll go have a stiff drink…it’s noon somewhere in the world.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Another new term the libs are using is calling semi-autos ‘guns of mass destruction.’ In the 80s, Ted Kennedy wanted semi-auto handguns to be called assault weapons (and of course banned) because they could be made to fire full-auto.

Does anyone think that if the libs ‘allowed’ guns for hunting only, a ban on hunting wouldn’t soon follow? There are already groups like PETA who want hunting and fishing declared illegal.

We all know what the Left wants, and how they’re using murdered children for their soapbox. No, there is no time for a ‘national dialogue’ about guns. It’s a yes/no situation, and we say yes to our right to be armed for self-protection with at least the same firepower we know criminals already have and can always get in the future.

Conversation over.

Liam on December 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It’s that “enemies, foreign and domestic” thingy that has us Americans, who are paying attention, a little worried.

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Yes, you are so right.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Perhaps, it’s just Obama “arming the workers“.

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 9:46 AM

The Department of Education is armed with the same guns that would send Feinstein running for the barf bucket.

Look at the words, “existing inventory” of riot shotguns? Ghost ring sights, speed feed stocks, combat training?

And I’m supposed to trust this government when they come for MY guns?

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Bishop:(snark):)

Must I do all the work!!

Remington Shotguns
Solicitation Number: EDOOIG-10-000004
Agency: Department of Education
Office: Contracts & Acquisitions Management
Location: Contracts (All ED Components)

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb68cf9f3fa2fe18a83d1c3dee0039b2&tab=core&_cview=0

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Three questions, gun control freaks:

1) What kind of gentle weapons do oppressive government troops use on their good citizens?

2) Since you tolerate every kind of illicit acts in the name of freedoms, why are you liberal/socialists so against the freedom to own guns–which worked well until your Godless social intrusions and deliberate division of our melting pot contaminated the well being and order of our nation?

3) What is it that you big government folks intend to do to we good citizens once you succeed in taking away our guns?

Don L on December 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM

The libs know it isn’t about duck hunting. They want you to think it is, tho.

And sadly, too many Republicans, because they are unprincipled, are embarrassed to use the word liberty.

JellyToast on December 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Does anyone think that if the libs ‘allowed’ guns for hunting only, a ban on hunting wouldn’t soon follow? There are already groups like PETA who want hunting and fishing declared illegal.

Liam on December 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It’s called, “herding.”

The Left is engaged in herding “guns” and the people who own them (and have the Right to do both) into “corralled issue spaces” — from there, to be culled.

It’s a herding process that the Left is engaged in. Exploiting the deaths of the people in Connecticut as the Left is doing is them waving a large red blanket at a herd so there’ll be a stampeeede, or so the Left is seeking. A stampede and then the Left can say, “See? Unstable people! Can’t be trusted!”

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

God forbid we need to use weapons for the uses described above but the nature of man is such that we as a society need to be prepared.

A couple thoughts on the posting from the article from summer:
1. The federal government is an agent of the states and citizenry, so the government can’t make promises to the states and the citizenry. Rather, it must abide by the parameters set up, by the Constitution which the states and citizenry used to create the government. The nation existed before the creation of the government. We, sadly, have forgotten this and now we live in trepidation of our own government and I fear it will only get (much) worse now that no one has put a stop to Obamacare.

2. Our rights are ours inherently, not promises from the government; they also existed before the federal government was instituted. In an ideal world, the states and citizenry maintain their inherent rights and the federal government, as spelled out, is precluded from “making any law” diminishing our rights.

Angineer on December 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Judging by the way America is going, it seems time to stop talking about rights, and start referring to permissions.

OldEnglish on December 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM

******** ALERT *******

For you Hot Air’ers in Florida,Tornado Watch:

LIVE STREAMING

http://www.fox10tv.com/generic/video/LiveStream_FOX10

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If they legislate us down to slingshots they will regulate the size and strength of the rubber bands…

d1carter on December 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I love the “military style rifle thing”.

My bolt action Lee-Enfield No1Mk3 is a military style rifle. Sure, mine was made in 1916 but it was purpose built to be a military rifle. Still used today and I’m sure it’s killed more people than AIDS.

Spade on December 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM

No one needs any more evidence that Schumer is well known for his public emotional excess and outbursts, and statements as there. Like many Democrats, they are out of control emotionally, psychologically, if not ethically and morally and a good chunk of their methods is to act so paranoically as to blame “Republicans” and “Conservatives” for their, the Left’s, own conditions.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Lourdes:Well said:)

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 9:54 AM

This time it was different, he was not let in the school, he shot his way into the gun free “safe zone”. So what is next? bullet proof windows?.

As a grandmother of young children, I am very concerned. We are sending our precious children into buildings that are not protected making them defenseless sitting ducks. As parents, we should be demanding that someone in that school be armed, Period.. This time it was different, he shot his way in. What more do people have to see?

shar61 on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM

…2. Our rights are ours inherently, not promises from the government; they also existed before the federal government was instituted. In an ideal world, the states and citizenry maintain their inherent rights and the federal government, as spelled out, is precluded from “making any law” diminishing our rights.

Angineer on December 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

When the issue (any issue but in this case, “guns” or “weapons”) are defined as “military style,” it defines those “weapons” (in this case, guns, the Right to own and bear per the 2nd Amendment)…it defines those guns as “military” in the functional minds (by popular language manipulation) of many. THUS, “guns” become defined as “military” and therein not an individual property to own and control but one of federal government to do so.

See what that phrase is about and why? It’s an effort to “change minds” by the Left: “military style weapons” is a propaganda phrase. It’s use is intended to alter perceptions and in doing so, bypass if not deconstruct the 2nd Amendment by “popular presumption”.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM

If they legislate us down to slingshots they will regulate the size and strength of the rubber bands…

d1carter on December 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM

First they came for the AK-47, then they came for the barking dog, next they confiscated the bike helmet.

Interesting and equivalent factoid: after Castro confiscated all the guns in Cuba and had stragglers who refused to surrender their guns shot along with Catholics, Jews, all those pesky thinking types who questioned what Castro was doing…after all that, he sent his “military” people around to CONFISCATE SAXOPHONES. He deemed the saxophone to be an agent of Imperialist Capitalist Worms and Parasites and forbid the playing and ownership of the saxophone throughout Cuba.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:01 AM

From the founding fathers.

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
– John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
– Trenche Cox, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb 20, 1788

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
– Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishments

The police are buying military surplus. They now use the AR-15 and carry them in their cars. In the Heller decision, it states:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”blockquote>

The AR-15 is NOT UNUSUAL. It is one of the most common weapons used, which is why police officers now use them. If they do try and ban this weapon, it could be said and proven that it satisfies the requirements of Heller as being ‘in common use at the time’, which I don’t personally have the same view, but as it stands now, it could work.

Patriot Vet on December 20, 2012 at 10:04 AM

wow you clowns are still arguing over firepower

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This time it was different, he was not let in the school, he shot his way into the gun free “safe zone”. So what is next? bullet proof windows?.

As a grandmother of young children, I am very concerned. We are sending our precious children into buildings that are not protected making them defenseless sitting ducks. As parents, we should be demanding that someone in that school be armed, Period.. This time it was different, he shot his way in. What more do people have to see?

shar61 on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM

This is the problem nationwide with many a school: they build them structurally to be safe and sound yet they don’t also ‘build’ into them an armed response to an armed invasion or assault.

As with other school (and theatre) shootings, all.it.would.take to save lives is an armed population. People who can and would defend themselves and others if ever required to do so, which is what nearly all responsible (and sane, and legitimate) gun owners will and are prepared to do.

It’s this unnecessary “fear” of citizens with guns and the Right to self defend and defend others that has the Left freaking out. The Left is ever quick to penalize the public to protect the criminal (“Constitutional rights”) but they are convinced that what’s “bad” is a good, well equipped citizenry. And that’s nuts.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This time it was different, he was not let in the school, he shot his way into the gun free “safe zone”. So what is next? bullet proof windows?.

As a grandmother of young children, I am very concerned. We are sending our precious children into buildings that are not protected making them defenseless sitting ducks. As parents, we should be demanding that someone in that school be armed, Period.. This time it was different, he shot his way in. What more do people have to see?

shar61 on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM
——–

You want to bring more bullets to the situation instead of preventing the situation in the first place. That’s pretty dumb.

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Perhaps it’s time for a corps of trained, armed volunteers to monitor school hallways. There are surely plenty of retired military and police officers who would be happy to participate. They would be managed at the local level, much as school-crossing guards are. And the cost would be very low.

The concept could be expanded to all public places. “A well-regulated militia. . .”

MrLynn on December 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

wow you clowns are still arguing over firepower

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That’s freaky, Dave. Because no one so far has “argued over firepower” except you.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Actually, the first documents to distinguish between “sporting” firearms and “hunting” firearms were those drafted by people under the direction of Joseph Goebbels. Thomas Joseph Dodd (May 15, 1907 – May 24, 1971) was an attorney who worked the Nuremberg Trials and was so impressed with the NAZI efforts at gun control he brought back a copy NAZI legislation and had it translated from German to English. He then introduced it (and it subsequently passed) as The Gun Control Act of 1968. Prior to Dodd’s legislation, there had never been a distinction between sporting and hunting firearms in the history of the United States. The Second Amendment made no mention of these classes.

For a concise history of “Herr Dodd’s” bill, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership at http://jpfo.org/

oldleprechaun on December 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

wow you clowns are still arguing over firepower

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That’s freaky, Dave. Because no one so far has “argued over firepower” except you.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM
—–

There are hundreds of moronic posts about exactly that.

This site is an amazing snapshot of people who think nothing has to change.

But hey – keep militarizing everything in your country into a shithole instead of tackling the actual issues.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

shar61 on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM

——–

You want to bring more bullets to the situation instead of preventing the situation in the first place. That’s pretty dumb.

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

It’s called self defense and the defense of others, Dave. Notice that the “mentally ill” people who have been responsible for these mass shootings all had the wherewithall to SELECT BEFORE HAND (that’s called, “planning”) a situation where victims would be undefended, unprotected, UNARMED.

A mentally ill person picks up a gun and storms a school? The effective and sane response is to disarm and incapacitate them. Whatever it takes. You render them neutral.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I want a Do Something! or an Absolute Shall to look at the photographs of these two “military-style weapons” (which means: LOOKS like, but doesn’t FUNCTION like) and see if they can identify which was banned under the original AWB a/k/a The Prohibition On Certain Guns With Cosmetic Changes That Make Them Look Skeery And Are Painted Skeery (And Racist!) Black Act of 1994:

(scroll down for answer and the unintended consequences of the original AWB)

BTW, since 1982, only 35 out of 142 weapons used in mass shootings since 1982 in America have been assault weapons AND automatic weapons have been banned (except for those with a Federal licence) since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Of the tens of thousands of murders in the US since 1934, ONLY TWO have been committed with an automatic weapon (machine gun). So, Rupert Murdoch, Soledad O’Brien, Frank DeFord, Norah O’Donnell, et al, education is your friend. Embrace it.

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but none of these mass killers used military style or assault weapons. They all used pistols I believe, so why are even talking about guns nobody uses in these incidents.

And I will echo what others wrote, the constitution says nothing about hunting so that argument needs to be shut up right away. Our rights to gun ownership should not be infringed. The constitution is quite clear.

Gun laws are folly. Evil people steal guns and murder innocent helppless people in places where they are not allowed to defend themselves. I know this issue will blow over in thie next couple of weeks and we won’t hear about it again until the next evil person commits heinous crimes, but guns are not the problem and more people with them may be part of the answer.

Ellis on December 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Lanza was denied the right to purchase a gun, just the week before. The rules work for law-abiding citizens.

Why can’t you understand that the criminally insane will still have guns, when the law-abiding don’t?

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM

The Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt.

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM

.
It sure ain’t. … : )

Reposting previous comment:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about the hobby/recreational/sporting use of firearms. It is about the common American citizen being enabled with the capability to function as their own “first line of defense” against (#1) a tyranical government, and (#2) common criminals.

.
Should I add (#3) nuisance or outright dangerous animals?

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Maybe if liberals would shut up, other crazy people might not be incensed to go on shooting sprees.

Liam on December 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM

wow you clowns are still arguing over firepower

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That’s freaky, Dave. Because no one so far has “argued over firepower” except you.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

—–

There are hundreds of moronic posts about exactly that.

This site is an amazing snapshot of people who think nothing has to change.

But hey – keep militarizing everything in your country into a shithole instead of tackling the actual issues.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

This site is an amazing snapshot of people who think nothing has to change.

Not at all true. But interesting that you “see” (or, “read”) that. So if there’s an issue, it’s your state of perceptions, not the “site” nor the “comments” except your own.

To Canada, you are welcome for the defense by the U.S.A. Last I looked, Toronto was giving some U.S. cities a run for that “shithole” rating you toss there.

“…keep militarizing everything in your country…”

Many comments here have denounced that phraseology. So perhaps your criticism is aimed at Barack Obama? He’s the guy who “militarized” “weapons” in his press conference yesterday as he has in earlier times and statements, as have his peers in the Left.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM

UGH!

Several school districts in Michigan close for rest of 2012 amid shooting hoaxes, ahead of doomsday prophecy – @detnews

4 mins ago from http://www.detroitnews.com by editor

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121220/SCHOOLS/212200406/

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM

From Oath Keepers web site:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry

My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don’t want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our “assault weapons” – our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles – and the “high capacity” magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE.

The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion’s share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call “sniper rifles” (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don’t need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22′s (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not “disarmed” while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range).

We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted.
And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms), I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge:

I Stewart Rhodes, as an American, as a military veteran, and as a father, pledge the following:

I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semi-automatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts.

I also pledge to pass on those military pattern rifles to my children and my children’s children, as well as the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition to needed to use them, regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
And that “power of the sword” – those “terrible implements of the soldier,” includes the people’s battle rifles and carbines – their M1As, their FN-LARs, their HK 91s, their Grandfathers’ M1 Garand, their AK 47s, their ARs and M4s, etc. – all of the weapons listed as being targeted for Feinstein’s new and improved “Assault Weapons Ban.”

The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe).

katy on December 20, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Lanza was denied the right to purchase a gun, just the week before. The rules work for law-abiding citizens.

Why can’t you understand that the criminally insane will still have guns, when the law-abiding don’t?

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Yes, what kingjester just said there ^^.

Some are deemed “criminally insane” BECAUSE they grab “weapons” and attack others. That’s a part of how some people are diagnosed as BEING “criminally insane”, that they engage in assault on others. They will use “weapons” that they can get their hands on: rocks, knives, someone else’s gun/s, fire, cars, electricity, rope, their hands, whatever they can weaponize.

It’s not as if the human species will ever be without the “criminally insane,” mental illness isn’t going away.

I agree there needs to be greater help provided to people with all areas of mental struggles — and it’s not common for mentally troubled persons to be “criminally insane”. But the U.S. needs to have more avenues of care and treatment and prophylaxis available to persons with mental troubles.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I agree there needs to be greater help provided to people with all areas of mental struggles — and it’s not common for mentally troubled persons to be “criminally insane”. But the U.S. needs to have more avenues of care and treatment and prophylaxis available to persons with mental troubles.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

UNFORTUNATELY, ObamaTax isn’t going to do that ^^.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

It’s called self defense and the defense of others, Dave. Notice that the “mentally ill” people who have been responsible for these mass shootings all had the wherewithall to SELECT BEFORE HAND (that’s called, “planning”) a situation where victims would be undefended, unprotected, UNARMED.

A mentally ill person picks up a gun and storms a school? The effective and sane response is to disarm and incapacitate them. Whatever it takes. You render them neutral.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM
—–

While your enormous/laughable ignorance of mental illness is noted, it would appear that you believe arming teachers to take out a gunman after he only kills 6 dead kids is preferable to not having a gunman at all.

Perhaps it is you who is mentally ill.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

But hey – keep militarizing everything in your country into a shithole instead of tackling the actual issues.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The increasing use of drones over American cities and the current preznit’s shiny new policy of targeting American citizens for assassination “as he deems necessary” is the fault of the NRA.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Lanza was denied the right to purchase a gun, just the week before. The rules work for law-abiding citizens.

Why can’t you understand that the criminally insane will still have guns, when the law-abiding don’t?

kingsjester on December 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM
——

So you support holding gun owners responsible for the whereabouts of their guns?

Like, say Lanza’s moronic mother?

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM

It’s no surprise that Bloomberg, who is on his third term when the law was two terms max when he took office, and who loves to subjugate the masses to his will, is the most radical of the anti-gun politicians. It’s hard to subjugate people who are armed with “military style weapons”.

Buddahpundit on December 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM

canopfor on December 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM

But society is doing just fine, it’s the gun owners we need to worry about.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I saw a guy on tv who said that these “military style” weapons weren’t needed because the governments weapons and military is too powerful.

I thought this an odd argument since we are fighting a war where the enemy is very good at low tech fighting.

They sound like the sympathizers to the british.

tomas on December 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM

The increasing use of drones over American cities and the current preznit’s shiny new policy of targeting American citizens for assassination “as he deems necessary” is the fault of the NRA.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM
———–

That’s ridiculous. WHat do drones have to do with the NRA? Why would you say that?

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I agree there needs to be greater help provided to people with all areas of mental struggles — and it’s not common for mentally troubled persons to be “criminally insane”. But the U.S. needs to have more avenues of care and treatment and prophylaxis available to persons with mental troubles.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

When it comes to improving mental health care and identifying the dangerous mentally-ill, it’s on the liberals’ to-do list. The first step is getting the guns, and they’ll eventually get around to the other matters. Which the ACLU and other liberal groups will fight tooth and nail if any ‘fix’ is proposed.

Liam on December 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM

So you support holding gun owners responsible for the whereabouts of their guns?

Like, say Lanza’s moronic mother?

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I do.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The instant someone is diagnosed as mentally ill, we put them into an asylum. The instant someone claims “not guilty by reason of mental defect”, we march them out of the courtroom and into the asylum.

The above policy will have a dramatic effect on the rate of mental disease in the US.

This resolves both of your issues.

BobMbx on December 20, 2012 at 10:26 AM

That’s ridiculous. WHat do drones have to do with the NRA? Why would you say that?

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You mentioned the militarization of society, I was just pointing out that the NRA caused the current liberal/demorat preznit to further such militarization. Without the NRA brainwashing the demorats wouldn’t support assassinating American citizens.

Bishop on December 20, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I hope someone is keeping an eye on this Bishop character. He seems a bit unhinged.

Mr. Arrogant on December 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM
—–

While your enormous/laughable ignorance of mental illness is noted, it would appear that you believe arming teachers to take out a gunman after he only kills 6 dead kids is preferable to not having a gunman at all.

Perhaps it is you who is mentally ill.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Like most people with delusions such as yours, you can’t substantiate them. You just type delusional crud about others to defame but you have no ability (no facts, no evidence, nothing “real” that can be objectively noted and discussed) to explain your delusions, which you promote because they’re delusions, not facts.

If there’s an unstable comment stream here, it’s coming from you.

People who are acting out criminally against themselves and others have to be restrained. THAT’S WHAT “INSTITUTIONALIZATION” *is*, it’s RESTRAINT for the “mentally ill” — people who pose a threat to themselves and others.

If one or more of those takes a “weapon” and attempts to use it against themselves or others, RESTRAINT is the effective response. RESTRAINT takes several forms: for the more severe threat, an even more severe restraint.

The threat sets the level of response.

So my earlier comments are sound as can be.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM

You want to bring more bullets to the situation instead of preventing the situation in the first place. That’s pretty dumb.

How about you tell us your solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, or better yet, solutions to help mentally ill people deal with their afflictions.

Dave Rywall on December 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

.
It should be the responsibility of the legal parent, or guardian to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

If a mentally ill individual is getting “out of control”, it’s the duty of the responsible parent/guardian to report to the proper civil authorities.

If a parent/guardian contacts civil authorities to report someone that they’re responsible for as getting out-of-hand, the civil authorities should get right on it.

The more details that come out about this, the more it is appearing that the civil authorities had at least some responsibilty in this.

Would you like to argue that?

listens2glenn on December 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3