Autopistola
Member
In our local paper we have a far-right bigot who's opinion gets published often and he manages to rile people up. One fired back about guns, challenging people to explain why they need an assault weapon without referring to the second amendment. I fired back with this letter, but before I could two others fired back with well-written and sensible arguements. Pay no attention to the 922r part, I kind of ad-libbed it for the non-gunnies.
Here goes:
In response to Joe Blow's letter about a need to own “assault weapons,” I respond with this: First of all, what the military defines as an assault rifle is considered by US law to be a machine gun; “assault weapon” is a term devised by anti-gun folks with an agenda and these so-called “assault weapons” are nothing like machine guns where it counts (according to the BATFE) in the trigger mechanism. Instead, they are targeted because they look like machine guns (so evil!) and can hold lots of bullets. Us pro-gun folks have replaced the deceptive term “assault weapon” with the tongue-in-cheek term evil black rifle. This anti-gun assault on “assault weapons” is at the forefront of an incremental battle against all gun rights. First they ban because they look evil or hold lots of ammo, then they ban guns that are to small, or too cheap, or too powerful, etc.
Here in America, those that are eligible can buy military-style weapons because this is the land of options. Speaking of options, firearms give us the option to defend ourselves from tyranny and oppression in a worst-case scenario. This makes other countries think twice before invading our homeland and possibly keeps our government in check as well. The second amendment protects the first; you value free speech, right? We shouldn’t have to sacrifice our rights because of a few bad apples; that kind of collectivism is for kindergarten and communism.
I liken banning large-capacity magazines to banning a truck motor that has too much power for ordinary citizens. This line of thinking breeds elitism and America is about equality, not elitism. Remember, they can’t ban the ingenuity that can home-build these items. We have lots of silly, ineffective gun laws already; read up on NFA section 922r or the definitions of an SBR, AOW; basically these are laws against guns that are too short, too weird, or not in accordance with trade laws at the time.
No one can un-invent the gun or destroy every single surplus rifle, there is just too many that were built to last. Does it really matter that citizens can own these archaic weapons when taxpayers fund the well-armed, dominant entity known as the military-industrial complex? Being a gun geek (not a far-right bigot), I think it’s wonderful that America is a legitimate international marketplace for small arms; that’s another thing that makes us unique.
As proof that Americans value their gun rights, gun sales have surged this season in response Obama’s presence, showing that many do not trust him with regards to his stance on the second amendment. That old American spirit, the rugged individualist, decided that if a politician says they shouldn’t be allowed to own something, they’ll go right out and buy it, just in case.
Here goes:
In response to Joe Blow's letter about a need to own “assault weapons,” I respond with this: First of all, what the military defines as an assault rifle is considered by US law to be a machine gun; “assault weapon” is a term devised by anti-gun folks with an agenda and these so-called “assault weapons” are nothing like machine guns where it counts (according to the BATFE) in the trigger mechanism. Instead, they are targeted because they look like machine guns (so evil!) and can hold lots of bullets. Us pro-gun folks have replaced the deceptive term “assault weapon” with the tongue-in-cheek term evil black rifle. This anti-gun assault on “assault weapons” is at the forefront of an incremental battle against all gun rights. First they ban because they look evil or hold lots of ammo, then they ban guns that are to small, or too cheap, or too powerful, etc.
Here in America, those that are eligible can buy military-style weapons because this is the land of options. Speaking of options, firearms give us the option to defend ourselves from tyranny and oppression in a worst-case scenario. This makes other countries think twice before invading our homeland and possibly keeps our government in check as well. The second amendment protects the first; you value free speech, right? We shouldn’t have to sacrifice our rights because of a few bad apples; that kind of collectivism is for kindergarten and communism.
I liken banning large-capacity magazines to banning a truck motor that has too much power for ordinary citizens. This line of thinking breeds elitism and America is about equality, not elitism. Remember, they can’t ban the ingenuity that can home-build these items. We have lots of silly, ineffective gun laws already; read up on NFA section 922r or the definitions of an SBR, AOW; basically these are laws against guns that are too short, too weird, or not in accordance with trade laws at the time.
No one can un-invent the gun or destroy every single surplus rifle, there is just too many that were built to last. Does it really matter that citizens can own these archaic weapons when taxpayers fund the well-armed, dominant entity known as the military-industrial complex? Being a gun geek (not a far-right bigot), I think it’s wonderful that America is a legitimate international marketplace for small arms; that’s another thing that makes us unique.
As proof that Americans value their gun rights, gun sales have surged this season in response Obama’s presence, showing that many do not trust him with regards to his stance on the second amendment. That old American spirit, the rugged individualist, decided that if a politician says they shouldn’t be allowed to own something, they’ll go right out and buy it, just in case.
