NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 859 guests online.
|
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 2008-04-26 10:35.
John Taffin at Guns Magazine - Mr. Taffin tells of how he verified the lies from an anti-gunner that evil assault weapons cause good people to turn violent. He bought two of them, and, golly gee, he didn't turn evil. I've seen this thesis before, but Taffin tells it very well. [guns] Fifteen years ago I did not own an assault rifle, and from here on we will use this term in the same way the all-knowing “mainstream” media does even though it is incorrect. My only semiauto rifle was a Ruger 10/22 customized by Jimmy Clark with a heavy match-grade barrel and match trigger. I had also given my daughter and son-in-law a 10/22 for a wedding present. I really did not see the need to personally own an assault rifle. Then it happened. I was sitting in my hotel room in Quincy, Illinois, after covering the Masters Tournament and waiting to go to the airport for the flight home. Turning on television I was astounded to hear the words of a Northeastern governor testifying before a Senate committee about assault rifles. He said, “It is the very nature of the weapon that causes normally law-abiding citizens to turn into criminals.” There it was! The cause of crime was not environment, nor poverty, nor someone looking for the easiest way to gather money. It was all the fault of this hideous weapon — the assault rifle. This man was saying these magic weapons could somehow change the character of anyone who even touched one. Could this actually be true? Did I dare to take the chance of finding out for myself? If I procured one would everything I have ever been taught be thrown by the wayside? Would the influence of parents, grandparents, teachers, and ministers suddenly be destroyed by a few pounds of metal and wood? Could the nature of this inanimate object really cause a normal law-abiding citizen to turn to crime and violent behavior? Did I dare take the chance to find out? If this governor was right and I put myself in possession of an assault rifle my whole life could change. It was a dangerous chance to take but I had to know if this governor was right. Surely he could not be either lying or ignorant. After all, he was an elected official. If he was right in his assessment, I could possibly ruin my life forever, perhaps destroy my family and lose any standing I had in my community. I thought about it for quite a while spending several sleepless nights. The decision was made and I would order not one, but two assault rifles. I would take the supreme test with both a .223 and a 7.62x39. It was possible one would not be enough to overcome my character. But if I survived both of them, I would be a stronger and better person, and I would also know that governor was either an ignorant liar or a lying ignoramus. add new comment | quote | 86 reads
( categories: RKBA )
|
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair TTLB |
Recent comments
1 hour 5 min ago
2 hours 1 min ago
4 days 3 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 2 days ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 1 day ago
3 weeks 3 days ago