Tag Archives: NRA

The Gun Battle is Over

Posted by Tim on

Feinstein came out with her assault weapons ban this week. There isn’t a whole lot to go over (since I’ve already written about the meat of it) but I do find it somewhat interesting that people are already doubting whether the bill will even be able to pass the Senate. Even after Obama’s bland speech regarding “gun violence”, during which he urged Congress to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, there are still democrat senators that are feeling uneasy about the whole thing.

What’s the reason? Simply put – we are. Politicians know that across the country, people are very upset about potential bans on their weapons. Somewhere around 4 million AR-15s are in the hands of legal owners, hurting no one. For a government official to suddenly ban these – that’ll lose at least 4 million votes. The issue hits home with a lot of responsible law abiding gun owners who feel that they are being attacked for doing nothing wrong. (Click HERE to see a list of specific guns to be banned.)

feinsteinBecause these Americans have something at stake (their guns) they tend to be more informed about the issue, and they tend to be more involved with the issue. The NRA, America’s largest gun-rights organization, has gained hundreds of thousands of members in the last couple of months. These members are both young and old, rich and poor, black and white; but they all have one thing in common – the value they place in the 2nd amendment. Just last weekend, pro-gun rallies were held at every state capital in the US. If this doesn’t send a signal to politicians, nothing will.

But surprisingly, these rallies even sent a signal to democrats, who, at least in recent history, have a habit of not listening to their constituents. Because of this, at least 6 democrat Senators seem unwilling to vote for Feinstein’s AWB. 6 down doesn’t leave enough room for a majority vote, let alone a super-majority which could over-ride a filibuster from someone like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If the bill doesn’t get through the Senate, the bill won’t get to the House, and won’t be signed into law by el Presidente. Even if the bill were to pass the Senate, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

The fact that it is unlikely to pass the Senate is a big sign that the America people just aren’t against “assault weapons”. People are informed, and they know that assault weapons are no more dangerous than other firearms. They know that the problem is not with guns, but with criminals. They understand why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment; to fight a tyrannical government. And they see through the cheesy propaganda put forth by Feinstein and her goon-squad. Feinstein’s AWB isn’t popular, and that is the reason it won’t pass.

The life of politicians can be long, and many of those currently in office remember the 1994 elections. Earlier that year, President Clinton signed the ’94 assault weapons ban (put forth by – you guessed it – Dianne Feinstein). The result was a massive surge in NRA memberships, a surge in gun sales, and a landslide election for Republicans in November. Politicians are not about to risk their careers over the bill. They saw what happened last time.

I was at a gun store earlier this week, and I must say, that I was happy to see so few people in there. This is probably in part because the store had sold out of almost everything on the ban list, but it is also because people are settling down. For a couple months things were crazy. Packed parking lots, long lines, and shortages of guns and ammo. If the stores are seeing sales drop off, that means that people aren’t worried about the ban. The media has started to talk about other things, the story has moved on. The war isn’t over (Feinstein will be back eventually), but it seems this battle is.

This has been a true testament to the power of the American people. The free press has allowed us to hear the news, free speech has allowed us to say what we think, and the right to assemble has allowed us to take our message to the doorsteps of politicians. Pat yourselves on the back. Good job.

But the real reasoning behind the AWB wasn’t ever about guns. It was about distracting the American people from the debt ceiling debate. Republicans have already vowed NOT to make the ceiling an issue (at least Boehner has), which means that America’s debt will continue to rise. Last time we did this our credit rating was downgraded. It wasn’t downgraded because we fought over the ceiling, but rather because we showed no interest in finding solutions as to how to pay all this money back. So far, Washington has done the same thing again, and as we tee-up another debt ceiling increase, a credit rating downgrade may be right around the corner.

Political Distractions

Posted by Tim on

Bronco Bama’s speech on gun control is over. Well… that was… unexciting. The event was hyped up by both liberals and conservatives. Over the past month, Joe Biden was set on a mission to come up with ideas on how to prevent mass shootings in the future. At the end of that month, he came up with 23 executive orders; ways Obama himself could make a difference. Its not exactly clear how any of these orders will do anything, but let’s be honest – that wasn’t the point.

obamashhThere are two main objectives in the gun control debate. The first is pretty straight forward – more gun control laws. Dianne Feinstein is salivating over reimplementing her “assault weapons” ban; a take-off of the 1994 legislation with a few new tweaks. The ban would of course ban weapons that have dangerous features such as carrying handles and telescoping stocks (because carrying handles kill people every day!), but would go further than the 1994 law. The ’94 ban applied to firearms with 2 or more of a list of features; the new ban applies to firearms with only one of these features.

The law is unlikely to pass, but there are a number of reasons for conservatives to be nervous. The biggest reason is because the leader of the opposition party (ie: the Republican party) is led by a moderate spineless wimp, John Boehner. Although Republicans hold a majority in the House, Boehner could very easily pull some of his colleagues into the back room, twist some arms, make some deals, and come out with something that liberals are happy with and conservatives hate; a gun control “compromise” that virtually forfeits the game to the Democrats.

I personally love how Obama dragged a few kids onto the stage with him. Just shows the lack of shame that this man feels – using children as political props. I laughed as he read those letters – thinking, “Oh God! This is what slimy politicians are made of! This man has it down to a science!” Of course, the letters from the kids are so vague that they’re completely meaningless. The president of the United States isn’t taking his cues from these “smart kids”; he’s using them to pull on a few people’s heart strings. Lucky for me – I’m a conservative, and therefore, I have no heart (or so I’m told).

The second objective of the gun control debate is this: to keep people’s eyes off the ball. While politicians, the media, and the American people are paying attention to a debate about “assault weapons”, and “gun violence”, (have you noticed that they’ve changed the wording from “gun control” to “gun violence”? Same thing they did by changing “global warming” to “climate control”) we’re edging nearer and nearer to the debt ceiling, and soon enough, it’ll be time to raise it.

Obama loves to push bills through quickly so that people don’t have time to debate them and not even elected officials have time to read them. If the debt ceiling debate started 3 months ago, then there would be no urgency; people would have time to talk about the pros and cons of such legislation. To make the issue more urgent, Obama is pushing off talking about the debt ceiling until the second before we hit it. This will create plenty of commotion, panic, and cries from the media to “do something”.

I love Rand Paul’s suggestion to pass a law stating that for every 20 pages in a bill, one day is allowed to read it. Imagine how much time that would have given the public to learn about Obamacare before it passed, or how much time we’d have to learn about the monstrous Dodd-Frank bill before it passed, or the new gun control bill that is soon to be brought forth. Could there be a way to ensure that politicians read the bills they vote on? Would that be too much to ask?

The whole charade today was nothing more than a political stunt meant to give the American people the impression that the President “cares” and that he’s “doing something”. His objectives have little to do with saving lives, and much to do with advancing his own political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about DC politics saw right through this phony press event; nothing more than a distraction, taking eyes off the elephant in the room – the government is out of money!

Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban

Posted by Tim on

Still waiting for the official bill to be published for the public’s eyes, but Dianne Feinstein has recently published a “Summary of 2013 Legislation” on her website. She’s patterning her new proposal after the 1994 “Clinton Ban”, that banned high capacity magazines, collapsable stocks, pistol grips, etc. The new proposal will ban these specific features, but there is one big difference. In the past (1994-2004), guns were banned that had 2 or more of these features. Now, guns with just one of these features will be banned.

Is there anything dangerous about a collapsable stock? No, not at all. The stocks allow people to adjust them based on each individual’s arm length. They “collapse” only to accomodate some people who have shorter arms. The legislation will also ban bayonet mounts, because obviously, people are slaughtering innocent school children with bayonets. The real key here isn’t the features themselves; it is that these features are offered on a variety of mean looking guns – things that scare Dianne Feinstein. (Feinstein could just look in the mirror, scare herself, and then ban herself from appearing in public without a wearing a mask. How about that?)

diannefeinsteinHer site also makes the proclamation that the 1994 ban lowered crime. While is it true that crime went down between 1994-2004 (the year the ban expired), she fails to recognize that crime was going down before 1994, and continued going down after 2004. This is a classic example of politicians not telling the whole story in order to sway voters towards particular legislation. Either Feinstein knows that she is intentionally misleading the American people, or she’s just that dumb herself. To be honest, I’m not quite sure which one it is.

Politicians love to take credit for good things occurring  and refuse to take credit for anything bad happening. Barney Frank loved taking credit for the housing boom of the early 2000s, but denied that his own policies had anything to do with the housing bust in 2006-2007. Dianne Feinstein loves touting her assault weapons ban as a life-saving endeavor, but never accepts responsibility for the underground black market she created while banning such weapons – a market that funds other criminal activity; drugs, prostitution, extortion, illegal gambling. It is as if politicians can do no harm and laws don’t have side-effects.

(Here’s a picture of Feinstein holding an AK-47. Notice her finger is ON THE TRIGGER and the gun is POINTING AT PEOPLE. This is basic gun safety; the stuff you learn on the first day of a Hunter’s Safety course, in the first five minutes of a Concealed Carry class. And she’s going to lecture me about what guns I can and cannot own? What a joke!)

Also included in her summary is this -

  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

I may, or may not, be the owner of one the weapons on the ban list. Luckily, because I purchased it legally (or so they assume), it will be “grandfathered”. I can keep it – oh good. BUT, I need to go through a second background check, give the Feds the serial number from the gun, give them my photograph and finger print, get the gun certified by state and local authorities, and then pay the ATF for all of this. I’ve never committed a crime – why should the feds have my finger print on file? Just to own a scary looking gun?

Isn’t the ATF the agency responsible for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels? The guns that have been proven to kill literally hundreds of Mexicans and even a US border patrol agent? And now I have to pay them to keep track of my information? Nah… not likely. Whatever happened to property rights? I bought something – therefore it is mine. I don’t need to do anything else, I already own it, and no one has the right to take it away. We do still have the 2nd amendment and the 4th amendment, right? (Well…. not really.)

My hope is that the bill will be shot down once it enters the House of Representatives where Republicans still hold a majority. Even if it doesn’t, it will likely be modified, and although these guns will be banned, the government won’t force current owners to register their guns with the federal government. There is no reason to assume that Feinstein just wrote this bill within the last two weeks. She’s most likely had it sitting in a desk drawer in her cozy Senator’s office since 2004, just waiting for the right moment to throw it on the American people. What better time than after a horrific school shooting, right?

In any case, I’m not going to register anything I have with the Feds, and I doubt most gun owners will. It is a long-time goal of the left to establish a national registry of guns and their owners. Once they know where the guns are, it makes it that much easier to seize them. Do gun bans lead to tyrannical governments? You tell me – Turkey, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala…

Celebrities and Gun Control

Posted by Tim on

Thomas Sowell explained in an interview on the Hoover Institution’s Uncommon Knowledge that knowledge is dispersed very widely. We are all experts within a small field, but one step outside of that field and we are completely lost. Although Sowell was referring more specifically to those he calls “intellectuals” (masters of linguistics who assume they know anything about economics, for instance), the same can be said for Hollywood elites. Celebrities tend to really overplay their influence on the American people. I can’t say for sure, but it seems that celebrities really believe that their opinions actually matter.

The new “Demand a Plan” crusade is out and about. The first YouTube video put forth is a series of celebrities, ranging from Conan O’Brien to Courtney Cox, saying that there has been too much killing, and enough is enough. It is time to do something, and demand a plan from the government to curb mass shootings. Virginia Tech, the Oak Creek Sikh temple, Aurora movie theater, and of course, the Sandy Hook elementary school – we need to “do” something.

The commercial itself doesn’t give any real plan for action, but the website does. “We can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will: 1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America, 2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and, 3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”.” The website doesn’t include information on how any of this legislation would actually reduce crime, but hey – humor me.

1. “Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.” This is pretty much already the case. Anytime I’ve bought a gun, whether its from a straight up gun shop or a hunting store, I’ve filled out a form, shown my ID, and had someone run a background check on me. If I was a felon, then they’d stop the transaction right there. I cannot buy a weapon without a background check as it is. Sounds like #1 is already taken care of, right?

Not exactly. There are people who may give a gun as a gift to their children, or to a friend. If I’m in need of cash, I might call someone and say, “Hey, want to buy my gun?” Unfortunately, there is virtually no legislation that would effectively regulate these transactions. It would be like trying to regulate the sale of used college textbooks. Good luck with that.

guns2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes! Because “assault weapons” aren’t mechanically the same as any hunting rifle? Banning assault weapons is a cry made by people who don’t know the difference between what they call an “assault weapon” and what our military uses. Automatic weapons (like those that our military uses) have been banned since the 1930s. No mass shooting has used an automatic weapon since 1982.

The assault weapons they are talking about are not a problem, they just look mean. When there was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 the authors of the bill, Diane Feinstein and others, literally went through a gun magazine and pointed at things that they didn’t like. If it didn’t look like a hunting rifle or ordinary handgun, it went on their “list”. Banning a weapon based on looks is foolishness.

3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”. In case you aren’t familiar, a straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun but knows beforehand that he’s just going to give it to someone else. The forms that people fill out already have a check box saying “Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm”. When people check “yes” they are saying that they are not buying it for someone else. Penalties for being a straw purchaser are already up to a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. Sounds pretty tough to me.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a real way to prove that someone is buying a gun for someone else. Once it is out of the store, who knows what they do with it? They bought it legally, registered it, haven’t committed a crime – are police supposed to begin checking everyone’s home and asking “I need to make sure you still have the guns that are registered to you.” Police have enough on their plates, I seriously doubt they want to be wandering around the streets asking people to show them their guns.

The problem with these types of laws is that they will have largely no effect on the criminals who are the main cause of violent crime. Celebrities can talk all they want about mass shootings, but the biggest victims of gun crime are young minorities in urban settings. These are the guns that need to be taken off the streets, and they are in the hands of people who need to be taken off the streets. Gangsters and drug dealers are the main culprit  when it comes to gun related homicides.

If “gun trafficking” is something we could cut down on by passing new laws, then drug trafficking would be down as well. If these liberal celebrities really want to punish gun traffickers, then look no further than Barack Obama himself – selling thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, many of which have been used to kill innocent Mexicans and even a US border patrol officer. With such a crummy example being set by the man in the oval office, why should criminals behave any differently?

Pat yourselves on the back, Hollywood. You’ve done nothing, but at least you feel good about yourself. A horrific killing happened, and for a moment, they were in the news, not you. So, to put yourselves back in the spotlight, you make a video demanding new gun control laws. Be an actor, be a comedian, be a musician, be a talk show host – but don’t pretend to know anything about the gun control issue.

Government Fails

Posted by Tim on

Plenty going on in politics today, but first  - the good folks over at T-Nation and Biotest sent me some of their new “Brain Candy” energy shots. Seems like its about twice the size of the typical energy shots (5 Hour Power, etc) and has about twice the vitamin B12 – 15,000%. It’ll be good stuff if I ever decide to stay up for more than 24 hours again, or if I just need an extra boost to power through my day. Thanks T-Nation!

On a less serious note (“less” is not a typo), John Boehner failed to convince enough Republicans in the House to vote for his “Plan B”. Thank God! Even after all of the arm twisting, back-room deals, and kicking conservatives off committees, Boehner still wasn’t able to get enough support for his bill from his own party. If it wasn’t clear before, this is a strong sign that the current Speaker of the House is a weak leader.

johnboehnerAs Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his show today (as he has been for the past few weeks), Republicans must stand on principle and not cave to Democrat demands of raising taxes. Sometimes that means that they will need to actually battle it out with Democrats, but these politicians were not sent to Washington to be an “Approved” stamp on anything the other party wants. If Republicans abandon their principles – one of which is to NOT RAISE TAXES – then they will lose credibility and have nothing else to run on.

Can John Boehner actually stand up to Obama? He doesn’t have a majority in the Senate, and not a huge one in the House. Whatever he passes will have to pass the Senate before it can be signed by the President. We all know this. Republicans are stuck in an interesting spot, but there is something they can do. Pass a bill that lowers the bottom 3 tax brackets and keeps the top 2 brackets the same. This shows that Republicans want to lower taxes (particularly those paid by the “middle class”). If Democrats don’t vote for it; then its on them.

John Boehner and the Republicans should take this idealogical battle to the people of America. The public is hardly involved in the discussion. What did Boehner do after he was unable to rally support for Plan B his proposal? He left. He’s on break until after Christmas. Funny. I know a lot of people who are working Saturday, Sunday, and Monday – and they actually get their job done! No vacations for these bums in Congress. You can clock out once the work is finished. If you aren’t able to finish it, then let’s get someone who can!

These are the same people who recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act that severely weakens the 6th amendment of the Constitution. All Americans are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but the NDAA give the federal government the power to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial. Someone can literally arrest you, and keep you in a federal prison without even informing you of the charges brought against you. What happened to a criminal’s right to confront his accuser? Well, if the accuser is the federal government apparently those rights don’t exist.

In regards to gun control, Bronco Bama has given Joe Biden the task of developing new government solutions to the supposed crime problem in America. Biden was given a month to come up with some great ideas. In the meantime, the NRA already established the National School Shield Program which will enable schools across the country to participate in actively protecting their students with retired police and security personel. It took the NRA a week to figure out a real solution, put someone in charge of it, and begin implementation of it, with the goal of having schools protected by the time kids return to class from Christmas break. Leave it to a private organization (the NRA) to do something better and faster than the government (Joe Biden).

That’s not the only example of private organizations performing better than the government. Since August, the Federal government has been trying to figure out what to do with former Marine, Jon Hammar, who has been unjustly held in a Mexican prison. Only within the last week or so has the story gone public, thanks largely to Fox News raising awarenes. People around the country made the demand that Hammar be released by Christmas to his family. He was released today. A private organization (Fox News) does a better job than the government (US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton).

Its just so easy to pick apart the government. Washington in particular is filled with people who really have no idea what they are doing. And these are the people that will be in change of your healthcare!!! AHHH!!!

Defending the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Tim on

Well, its time to defend the 2nd amendment again. Every time some whack-job goes and shoots up a school, mall, or theater, gun rights advocates like myself have to step up our game and work to spread the word about what the real problems are, and what the problems aren’t. The argument hasn’t changed. It seems that the left exploits any example of violence to try to pass new legislation restricting gun ownership. The most radical left-wing nuts cry for outright bans on all firearms. Nothing new, but now is the time to brush up on the facts about guns and crime.

shootingThe argument is something along the lines of “if guns were illegal, people wouldn’t be able to murder.” This argument fails to recognize that murder is illegal. If the crime itself was committed, why would some other laws hinder a criminal? Criminals are by definition people who don’t obey laws. Politicians can pass all the laws they want, but criminals will still find guns. You then end up with a situation where law abiding citizens are defenseless and the criminals have all the guns.

But of course, “if it could save only one life, it would be worth it”, right? But the facts fly in the face of this assumption. Not only do guns laws not work to relieve crime, but in many cases, as more gun laws are passed, crime increases. Therefore, its not a matter of “if it only saves one life”; these laws will cost lives, not save them. During riots in Los Angelos during the 90s, waiting times in California prevented innocent people from being able to defend their homes and businesses. Contrast this with the crime and looting in Florida following hurricane Andrew – people were able to quickly buy guns to defend themselves, and the criminal threat was neutralized. Continue reading →

Recommended Reading (7/9/12)

Posted by Tim on

The whole Fast and Furious scandal is a bit of foreshadowing on what is to come should America re-elect Barry Obama. Despite what some may say about Obama neglecting to pursue any major gun control measures, his record is perfectly available to anyone who wishes to learn more. Obama and the 2nd Amendment just do not go together. It is because of this that its important to re-educate ourselves on the gun control issue.

Perhaps it is in our favor then to read a book that was written in the height of Bill Clinton’s anti-gun era in the 90s. Guns, Crime, and Freedom is the book to read. Written by Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association), this book provides the reader with the know how to argue for freedom and against gun control.

When this book was written America had just passed the “Brady Bill”, which banned certain weapons – especially so-called “assault weapons”. LaPierre lays out the facts in clear English. Assault weapons account for about 2% of crimes. The ban on assault weapons wasn’t designed to lower crime, but to get the proverbial “foot in the door”. Brady Bill II showed exactly what was coming, (an virtual ban of most firearms, thereby eliminating the 2nd Amendment) and luckily it never passed.

LaPierre exposes just about every gun control fallacy, from waiting periods to licensing, concealed carry to children and guns. He then takes on the root of our crime problem in America – our lax justice system. Account after account is brought forth where criminals are placed back into society before they have serve their time, only to murder and rape again. Prisons DO work, and its time we thought about society more than of the criminal’s “feelings”.

Going back and looking at where we came from in the 90s can help us see the signs of another Brady Bill coming in the next four years should Obama be re-elected. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Don’t think that the 2nd Amendment isn’t on their hit list. It is the 2nd Amendment that insures the rest of the Constitution, and you better believe they’re planning on attacking it.

Assault Weapons and the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Tim on

I have a confession to make. I just purchased another gun. Now, that’s no surprise to people who know me. I’m pretty sure that I’m a certified “gun nut”; one of those guys who drives a crappy car, lives in a crappy house, and wears crappy clothes BUT has thousands of dollars invested in firearms. I take most of that back – I have a decent house, a decent Toyota Tundra, and I wear… well… less than fashionable, but not poor quality, clothing. But I do have thousands of dollars invested in firearms. It’s my vice.

Although I’ll openly admit to being a pro-gun NRA member, I’m not about to talk about what I have. I’ll talk about that with personal friends, but honestly, I’m too much of a paranoid weirdo to start blabbing about it on the internet. Bear with me as I use vague descriptions of guns during this post and in the future.

My most recent purchase was paid for with my tax return. I picked it up at store here in Wisconsin that has a pretty large selection of assault weapons. (For those of you who don’t know – “assault” weapons are any gun that makes the liberals pee their pants. Usually these are rifles with big banana clips hanging off them. The term “assault” was originally penned by leftists looking to ban the weapons that they didn’t like. Calling them “assault weapons” helped advance their cause.) I went there because, well, I was looking to buy an assault rifle.

As I was driving around on my normal work route, I stopped at a satellite store and was looking to talk with a friend of mine. He was in the Army in the 90s and we always like to talk about guns. Since I had just purchased this new gun, I was eager to talk to him. Unfortunately, he was at lunch when I was there, but I still pulled up a website on his computer and left the page open so he’d see it when he got back.

Another worker walked past the computer and laughed, “Is that what you bought?” Yes, yes it is. He shook his head and explained that he’s not a “gun guy”. That’s fine. Not everyone is going to share the same hobbies.
“Well, as long as you don’t dislike guns, it’s okay with me” I responded.
“I understand people having handguns, and rifles, and whatnot. But not stuff like THAT.”

So, I went on to explain that the gun isn’t as bad as it looks. It’s an assault rifle. People assume that because it has a 30 round magazine that it’s somehow more dangerous that any other rifle. In reality, there are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than the standard M16 that our armed forces use. But hunting rifles don’t look mean; assault rifles do.

After I explained this to him he was fine with it. He now felt safe. This whole misconception is a big problem in America though, and maybe I should explain it. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution is not there so that we can hunt animals. It’s also not there so we can protect ourselves from robbers entering our homes. It’s there so that citizens can create a militia. Now, some people will say that we don’t need militias, because we already have an army. Once again, people aren’t getting the idea. The militia isn’t to defend us from outside enemies; it’s to defend us from our own government.

The founders were very concerned about the abuse of power by government. That is why they gave us the second amendment – so that we could fight our government if we had to. Now, we haven’t had to yet, but as history has shown – tyranny can be swift and unexpected. Our citizens need to be armed if they are ever to confront their own government. Furthermore, this is exactly why assault weapons should be legal to ordinary citizens. We’re not going to fight off a tyrannical government with handguns – we’ll need these “mean looking” guns.

It’s important to know this stuff. Hunting and sporting, home protection – that’s all a bonus, but the real reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to arm people against their own government.