[vincewarde]

Why Virtually All Gun Owners Oppose A Ban On "Assault Weapons" - And Why You Should Too

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-virtually-all-gun-owners-oppose-ban.html

I have prepared this article with the non-gun owner in mind. It carefully explains, with source referenced information and graphics, why the assault weapons ban is bogus. It also reveals where the gun control movement really wants to go and how they can use the same dishonest tactics to ban many other weapons.

Please consider promoting this on social media and in any other way you can. Thank you!

[KJG67]

Well done.

[ScottA]

Great article. Please stop by the introductions area and tell us about yourself.

I'm going to move this to the "Countering Gun Control" sticky.

[GatorDude]

I have written two articles that may help:

Gun Owner Objections to an Assault Weapons Ban and Magazine Capacity Limits

The Real Reason Gun Owners Want to Order Ammunition Via the Internet

[ScottA]

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

[Vikingdad]

At least this guy is being intellectually honest with himself. It is worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/confessions-of-a-liberal-gun-owner.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Shade]

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-It's%20amazing%20what%20one%20has%20to%20believe%2 0to%20believe%20in%20gun%20control..html?PHPSESSID =85ccd920c0f9b7eed9ac9cf80ce937e3

[krosskelt]

I'm wore out. I don't know if I can maintain my exercise in futility. I have a few, very few, friends that are in support of a gun ban. Two to be specific that post all day about anti gun links and media. I have debated with these people and tried to direct them to the facts. My theory is most anti gun people are going off of feelings and propaganda rather than actual facts.

One has a family, and just last year somebody tired to break into their home. While his wife, kids, and himself were home in the middle of the night. He asked me for advice on what kind of gun would be good for home defense. Being as he lives in an area with a large Mexican population, I told him everybody speaks 12ga. He is largely anti government and an atheist. Claims you can not believe either government or religion. But when I confronted him on post on his page, and directing him to facts on violent crime, he seemed to understand my point. He quit posting, for two days then began with the same propaganda campaign he was on previously. When I comment to his post now and include sources to facts, no reply.

The other is a gun owner. He post things that support "assault weapons" and high cap bans. The latest post was about "why is it when the government talks about restrictions, the pro-gunners think that they are going to take ALL the guns." I tried to ask him where it stops, and pointed him to sources showing the UK trying to ban all pointy knives. I have told him the one pistol that he is a proud owner of will fall under the ban. His reply was "They will never be able to enforce it." Umm buddy it doesn't matter if they have the resources or not, if you get caught it will be a federal offense and you will be held in a federal prison. I also tried to point out that it made no sense to me how he could support something, that he is not going to follow, and has no faith can be enforced.

I am at a loss at how people can be this way. They are willing to accept the fact they need protection. They are willing to say that it will not affect the way criminals act. Both of these people stand up for civil liberties, gay marriage, free speech, freedom of religion, pro-choice, and all other freedoms in America. But when it comes to this they are against. They can not provide any facts that support their side of the debate, just feelings. Yet they believe I am sitting in my basement with a tin foil hat afraid that they are coming for my guns.

I do not feel they are going to do it, they are right I am afraid they are going to do it. I am afraid, not because I feel they are going to, but because they say they are trying to do it. I own three pistols, a shotgun, and a model '94 30-30. From what I understand my pistols will all be gone (each accepts more than 10 rounds) and I will be left with my long guns. I have a CCL and I am not allowed to cut my long guns down to a length that will fit in my pants. I do not feel safe with 6 rounds. I go to the range every other weekend, and I shot fairly well. Not a bullseye competitor by any means. But I shoot often enough to know with a moving target and under stress if there are more than one attacker 6 rounds will not be enough to keep my family safe. I just keep posting the facts in the comments of their post. Hoping that somebody that reads their post sees the truth and is able to push their feelings aside for a moment. I wish they would think about what measures could be taken that could be enforced, and would make a difference to the way criminals behave.

[Shade]

YouTube

YouTube

Why does it take a naturalized citizen to remind constitutionally illiterate Americans what it means to be an American?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=rtZjUcze-k0&NR=1

Bravo Zulu, Marine.

[vincent]

Courtesy of Stillersfan...

http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html