 
“Perhaps it should be pointed out at this time that the 2A isn’t about sport or hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants. So-called ‘modern semi-automatic sporting utility rifles’ (or whatever) have a ‘sporting’ aspect wholly incidental to their to their original design criteria. We all know and can agree that they were designed as weapons of war and they have been proven quite effective at meeting their design objectives. That is exactly why We the People want them and why it is the right of We the People to possess arms of military utility; checks and balances, a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction should those in power get too far out of line. The Founders knew that and we pussyfoot around that aspect of the 2A at our peril. Notwithstanding the shrieks of horror and madness that will surely ensue from our more liberal, squeamish and fainthearted countrymen, this needs to be a part of our so-called ‘national conversation” on guns.’ – TTAG reader Greg
Fantastic quote. I keep reading people saying that the men and women who own AR platform rifles have no chance of standing up to the modern US military, since we have no planes, missiles, etc. Do these people not realize that we, as armed citizens, might one day be standing beside the members of our military, helping to defend our country from an invasion force? We have been very lucky to not have a true enemy invasion force within our borders for 200 years or so, and that apparently has tricked many citizens in this country into thinking that it will never happen again. My desire to own a rifle is to defend myself and the ones I love, either from enemies found within our own government or an enemy nation on our soil.
Not to mention that insurgents with little more than rifles and home made explosives seem to be doing a good job bleeding our military and political will over in the sand box.
They have full automatic rifles and bombs bigger than the one that took down the Murrah building. Many of them are very well trained in base camps around the Middle East and infiltrated into the country. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are OFWGs with diabetes.
You’re assuming no one owns NFA weapons, slide fire stocks, illegaly convert their FCGs (like Gen1&2 PS90s) or that Mexican cartels wouldnt smuggle LMGs up north. Most IEDs arent that big. And Ammonium Nitrate isnt that hard to obtain. And how many pounds of binary explosives do you think are sold to shooters every year?
You’re grossly overestimating the training they have. How many casualties have US forces really suffered due to coordinated squads of insurgents with small arms?
“You’re grossly overestimating the training they have. How many casualties have US forces really suffered due to coordinated squads of insurgents with small arms?”
you apparently havent visited afghanistan or iraq. US troops have been killed by marksmen with WWII era rifles.
Youre underestimating the training “they” have since tens of thousands are former US troops themselves that are experienced in fighting guerrillas and have no desire to fight for a oppressive government.
Yuuuuup.
Absolutely. I am so sick and tired of hearing liberal friends cluck their tongues and tell me I don’t “need” an AR-15 or AK-47, and that I certainly don’t “need” 30-round magazines. I tell them that since they’ve never had the army try to quarter soldiers in their homes, they don’t “need” the right to deny them. And since they’ve never petitioned the government for redress of grievances and have no plans to do so in the future, they don’t “need” that right either.
Why hell — the last time Americans got so wound up about violence they allowed our government to institute the Patriot Act — in which they allowed Congress to pass laws denying protection under the First, Fourth and Sixth amendments. Anti-gunners will be happy to do even worse now.
Outstanding quote,……..”the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants !”
Good article.
Here’s another I’m sharing with this group and one of the best I’ve read on the subject recently. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_156/1408276_Great_commentary_about_current_conditions___Pass_it_on_.html
Well worth the 5 minute read.
This is exactly the intent of the 2a. However, unfortunately this idea will scare the daylights out of America’s sheeple who can never believe that the benevolent American government would ever do anything antithetical to their interests.
This will scare the sheeple bred to believe that the Harvard educated intellectual elites that form the new political aristocracy won’t always know what is best for everybody else (sound familiar). It will scare the sheeple who shortsightedly, and a-historically, believe that these intellectual elites, because they are liberal or progressive, have the (right) interests of the American people at heart and will never desire to do anything for their own personal gain or self aggrandizement. They believe that, for some reason, the historical proclivity of any ruling party to acquire ever increasing power and control will never apply to Barack Obama or–more realistically–his successors of any party.
We can accurately make this argument about the intent of the second amendment, but I fear that it will be an argument that will have the opposite effect we want in the debate over an upcoming Assault Weapons Ban. It will not resonate with enough of our naive, government dependent, population. In their minds it will make us all look paranoid and subversive to the good order of American society. We will be painted as racists and reactionaries who secretly wish for a civil war so we can re-establish the white patriarchy. There is no convincing people who see the world, literally, in black and white. It is an us versus them world for America’s sheeple so indoctrinated by the liberal machine into identity politics and they don’t like the idea of us (their them) being armed with weapons that would actually be effective for resisting their benevolent tyranny.
An element of this that would be more palatable to the sheeple is armed and even organized self defense at the local level against gangs/lawlessness, when/if the welfare checks stop and the police are unable to cope. This is a REAL and probably INEVITABLE contingency and people best be prepared.
We really need to copy something like the Swiss model at the state/county level.
breitbart.com said it better than I could have:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/Gun-Control-Punishing-Millions-For-The-Crime-Of-One
“And Feinstein and the Democrats are reacting to this crime by pushing new laws, requirements, and controls on the 100 million gun owners who had nothing to do with this crime. This is just one more troubling, and immoral, aspect of gun control–it punishes the many (in this case, 100 million gun owners) for the crime of the one.”
I question the wisdom of saying we need AR’s to shoot government troups. I am with you on this & feel Katrina was a government gone berserk. As someone on here recently posted posted though, this is not about convincing the anti’s to repent their ways(they won’t), this is about convincing the undecideds & middle of the road people to join us & I don’t think talking about using our weapons on government forces will do it. What we have been doing seems to be slowly working, Randy
I am hopeful that the middle of the road-ers and the undecided citizens will use common sense and logic when it comes to deciding where they stand on this issue. Let us hope that having a liberal screaming an emotional, nonsense rant on TV will get old to the undecides very soon.
“common sense” I have come to hate that term. It would seem true common sense is a super power these days
Well put!
Amen
The state derives its power from both weapons technology and the consent of the population. No one person can control the world with a single weapon or a good natured personality. A corporation of individuals agree to pursue the common goal of running the state, some of whom must be armed, and non state individuals must consent to it in sufficient numbers.
When someone breaks a rule of the state there may be a fine. If the fine is resisted, there is capture. If capture is resisted, death may occur.
The state, made up of citizens, will take as much as the citizens will allow. In a culture which doesn’t see the state as very important, the citizens will not allow high regulation; the police will not enforce strict laws or will quit, and the citizens will begin to physically and figuratively fight back. No state wants to be hated too much, so it will decrease its influence to keep a good name. In a culture which sees a large state as necessary, people will put up with strict rules, and police will enforce the rules with good conscience.
Both the more statist and less statist cultures, however, will be less likely to allow a state mandate if they believe it to induce violence. Compare the public response to the arrest of three men. An unarmed man can be arrested by two men with revolvers. A man with a handgun is arrested by a squad of men with ballistic protection and rifles. A man with all manner of small arms, destructive devices, etc. requires armored vehicles, if not tanks, and long range weapons or explosives to capture. Compare two officers with sidearms to tanks. The public will accept more oppression if it is carried out by the former.
This is in response to the claim “Assault weapons cannot protect us from tyranny, because we do not have access to tanks and smart missiles.” The people will put up with a certain amount of violence, so the state wants to use the least violence possible while keeping profits (financial and other) as high as possible. Increasing violence necessary to arrest one person makes the enforcement of each law less profitable. As long as the citizen does not do anything foolish that causes the state to actually use the firepower against him, increasing the price of law enforcement (in both resources and public opinion) should cause fewer laws, and less meddling.
Here is a response to the frequent comment that “the public would never win a war against the state”. The state can surround and destroy any one home with its vast array of weaponry, but there are 300 million Americans. How many millions of homes can the state military surround and destroy? A few homes can be an example to scare the rest into submission, but physically, the military would be spread too thin. Further, and correct me if I’m wrong, it is private companies who make most of the advanced weapons used by the state, as well as other resources needed to run the military. If all out war occurred (not that it will), the state would run out of resources. Or, the state could take over oil refineries and weapons manufacturers, or any number of other things. This is the point where everything is conjecture, at least for me, and is not really worth discussing at this time.
The point is that a highly armed citizenry will have a better chance at keeping rights than a lowly armed citizenry, even if the state owns nukes.
+1000
The state derives its power from both weapons technology and the consent of the population.
And if you attempt to peacefully withdraw your consent, the same state will kill your wife, your children and your dog, not necessarily in that order. If a large group, say eleven states, attempt to withdraw their consent, they can expect their people to be slaughtered en masse and their cities burned to the ground.
It’s not consent if you can’t opt out. Consent is an illusion. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Always has. Always will. That’s why they want ours.
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
So why did you bother voting? Masturbation would have been a more effective form of self gratification.
I tried masturbation but Romney still lost.
LMAO Ralph eewwwww!!!
If enough people withdraw their consent, the agents of the state will become increasingly more hesitant to inflict terror on me. Police will only be so willing to kill their fellow citizens. Eventually they will refuse orders. Most of us have likely heard of officers saying they would not confiscate. Policing a foreign population encourages more brutality because the soldiers feel less in common than with their own neighbors. If cops were more freedom loving than now, the state would not be as oppressive as it is now. Power comes through the barrel of a gun, but there are lots of guns out there. Getting people with guns to unify under oneself is how to get power. Those who are loyal and with guns need to outnumber(invasion), have consent from(American state), or keep a perpetual imbalance of firepower (a warlord and his gang) with those being controlled. Yes, if I withdrew my consent, my family could be murdered. This is because there are police who work for the state and follow orders, even unjust ones.
BTW, I don’t think a secession of 11 states would necessarily fail. The war of the 1860s was caused by a secession, but I don’t think it had to be fought. I think, or at least hope, that our better communication systems today would prevent that. Don’t quote me on this stuff though; I really have no idea what would happen if a few territories seceded. I just have a feeling there wouldn’t be the widespread terror and warfare some would expect. Secession can be gradual. 🙂
Ideally, an American citizen is a member of the militia by citizenship duty even if he or she does not belong to any group or own arms. The duty is, to the best of one’s ability, to stand up to enemies foreign and domestic.
I live in Oregon. It is not inconceivable in the event of an American economic and political collapse, famine, or plague etc that sometime within the next twenty to fifty years Chinese troops arrive in Alaska or the PNW. That is just one of many examples of what might occur.
The US central government owes the Chinese more than a trillion dollars. The Chinese will do nothing to jeopardize that investment. They want us alive and healthy so we can repay what is owed.
The Chinese arent naive. They know that money will never be repaid, unless we massively debase our currency.
The Chinese know they will be paid back in full:
either in cash or our servitude.
The Constitution serves 2 (two) purposes: to protect us from ourselves and to protect us from others(like China, et. al.).
Stand fast to 2A and your freedom. They are all watching us fall.
Nous Defions
No, the Chinese aren’t naive. They know we’ll keep paying the interest if we can’t repay the debt. Just like with your local loan shark, you ain’t gonna get your legs broke if you pay the vig.
That is why the oath you take upon service in the military is, first, to the constitution: support, defend, bear true faith and allegiance. The oath was written at the same period of time as the Constitution. The Constitution is your only assurance to your freedom. And, of course, your free to give it up to those whom do not really have your safety or freedom in mind or at heart.
Your freedom and safety have already been addressed: it IS the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
Nous Defions
there will be no chinese troops in alaska.
theyre going down economically just like we are. hell, the entire fiat currency paradigm is going down like the titanic and the power base changing to the far easy is equivalent to switching decks.
Copy and send to everyone that ask this question: Feel free to edit
“Whay does anyone need a assault weapon and high capacity magzines?
TO:
You have stated you couldn’t understand why anyone needs large capacity magazines that someone can just spray bullets killing many victims. And if they were illegal we would have less victims. We as a nation are reacting to multiple victims and especially so since they were children. Each parent of every child would have a problem with that scenario since their child may be the one of the “lower body count” For me, even one victim is too many. Just lowering the body count isn’t a solution. The crime in China where the children were attacked with a knife is still unacceptable I think their parents would say.
Criminals tend to avoid armed protected areas and seek out helpless victims especially schools(Gun-free killing fields).
I am conservative, republican and pro-gun as related to the 2nd Amendment, right to Self- defense as well as hunting and recreational/competition shooting. I do believe in extensive training for everyone that owns/handles weapons. I have no problem with background checks. I believe in setting restrictions for individuals that display questionable actions and/or intent. I agree that there are certain individuals should be prevented from have guns. I lean toward common sense solutions that actually work. Unfortunately one of those solutions is to respond to the killer with deadly force. The reality is that criminals will always get weapons including guns with high capacity magazines. Law abiding citizens must not be prevented from legal ownership of the same type of weapons and capacity to defend themselves, family and property. During hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes civil unrest, economic breakdown and a multitude of events that vital services such as electricity, gas and police presence are non-existent. Looters and gangs roam freely robbing, raping and killing. Drug activity by gangs in our neighborhoods have become all too common. This is when the only defense against these marauders is to be armed adequately to protect your family, friends, neighbors and property. Here is where having adequate arms, magazines and ammunition is needed and vital to surviving one of these events. It is one of those things if you wait until you need it to get it, it is already too late. Large capacity magazines(20 and 30 rds) and semi-auto carbines are very effective in the scenarios listed above. Once the criminal element knows you are not armed or unprepared, nothing will stop them.
I actually hate it that our country has come to this, but it is reality. I am an information junkie and read and study politics, society and other topics. I have come to realized that we the citizens have to participate in fight to stop the criminal element form terrorizing our country. As everyone knows, criminals do not obey laws. Making a “survival tool” and its accessories illegal will do nothing but disarm the law abiding citizen and make him or her and their family vulnerable to attack.
There are many things to consider to come to the final solution to protect our children as well as the general public from bad or evil perpetrators. I know I don’t have answer to this but I do know that any ban that affects law-abiding citizens from having the necessary means to protect themselves and family from all threats would cause more killings.
Situations citizens need additional firepower:
Any local, district, county, state, regional or national disaster of any kind where police cannot protect your neighborhood or homes due to lack of resources, accessibility, awareness and/or response time . Home invasions by multiple attackers. Any situation where it is up to you to defend you and yours. We are the first and only immediate line of defense in these situations. All police forces carry Carbines and lots of 30 round magazines. We are the first responders, the police are the second. Why would we utilize less firepower than the police when we are the ones under attack initially. We are the ones that can end the threat immediately since we are the ones under attack. The police aren’t the ones under attack, they come after it has started to stop the criminals and arrest or stop the attack after it is probably too late for some of the victims that have already died or been injured. Every newscaster harps on reducing the body count. I don’t want a body count at all.
My intent and goal is to save everybody by neutralizing the attacker as fast as possible.
Neutering the attacker would also work.
TL;DR;
Very good post thanks Greg.
When people talk about gun control to stop spree killers, I have recently started pointing out that these killers may use bombs instead then. You can avoid bullets but not blast radiuses.
You mean no BSing this time around?
No semiautomatics, no 2nd amendment (or 1st), as well as no freedom.