My Take On The Assault Weapons Ban & The 2nd Amendment

     On December 14 an mentally ill Adam Lanza attacked Sandy Hook Elementary school, incurring 27 KIAs and 2 WIAs. Of those 27 KIAs, 20 were between 6 and 7 years old. Less than 24 hours the Media and gun control advocates were dancing in the blood of the massacred innocents. I've kept silent on this issue because I thought it was pointless to add to the discussion, because of the demonization of gun owners, and that fact that it was extremely inappropriate time to discuss gun control. However, if the media and liberals wish to play dirty, then so be it, these are my thoughts. 

     1. Assault weapons/hi-cap magazine bans are pointless. Sen. Diane Feinstein has promised to introduce a new assault weapons ban (see outline here), and Dems in the House are promising to introduce a bill banning hi-cap magazines. However, I can tell you a murderer does not need an AR-15, AK, AUG, or any other semi-atuo with a +10 round mag to slaughter people or raise seven different kinds of hell. In fact, the same day as Sandy Hook a man stabbed 23 at a school in China, I would bet had he taken his time he could have killed at least of those he stabbed, but thankfully he didn't. Another thing these assault weapons bans forget is that the guns they ignore, (revolvers, bolt-action rifles, M1 Garands, and any pistols with a >10 round mag capacity) are just as dangerous in the right hands as a AR-15 or Glock 17. A skilled marksman with a Mossberg ATR, Remington Model 700, Savage Axis or any other hunting rifle, can wreak havoc from a concealed position on large groups of people. Take for example Charles Whitman in Austin, TX in '66. Basically, assault weapon/high-cap mag bans do little to stop slaughters of innocents, and are little more than feel-good solutions. Just to get a fell for what Feinstein's new bill would affect, here are what qualified  a weapon as an assault weapon under the Clinton ban.

    2. The true purpose of the 2nd amendment is to inhibit the government from becoming tyrannical. Personally, I've had arguments with people claiming that the 2nd Amendment only gives the military the right to bear, I've seen the media claim that the 2nd Amendment only protects hunting, and I've heard people claim that the Framers didn't see semi-auto rifles coming (that's actually a highly debatable point), and wouldn't want the people to have access to them to prevent crime. Bullshit, all of it. Rifles and pistols are the great equalizers, prior to their development kings and/or the government could do anything they wished to the people, and the people couldn't do a thing. However, now that We The People are armed, and trained in the use of those arms, the government can no longer prohibit practicing religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or any other right documented in the Bill of Rights. The Framers wanted the people to be just as well armed as the military, so that The People would be able to put the government back in it's place, namely, subservient to the people, instead of vice versa. To lose that right to keep and bear arms, of all types and looks, would be to make The People servants to the government and give the government a leg up on The People in a situation where the government must subdue the people. To quote Mao Zedong, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party [The State] must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party [State].". That is in essence why the government wants in enact gun control, and is also why we must never surrender our guns under any conditions.

    Finally, all I have to say about a new assault weapons ban is that it won't work, this is a waste of time. It would be better to just repeal the NFA of 1934 and throw out the idea of gun control because it doesn't work. In the end, in the event of new gun control laws, all I have to say is, I will not comply.

μολὼν λαβέ