Saturday, December 29, 2012

WHY KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?



If you just HAD to be hit by a bullet, which of the above would you rather be hit with, the big fellow on the right or the smaller guy on the left?

I know, I know. Most of would rather not be hit by either one. But if you had to choose, which one would you choose?

The bullet on the left is the smallest, and as you move to the right the bullets are larger.

Turns out that, starting with the second bullet from the left and moving to the right, three of those rounds are used for hunting: the 30-30; the 308 and the 30-06. The former is a sort of "entry level" big game bullet, the 30-06 is a really sophisticated big game round.

The bullet on the far left is used in the infamous AK47.

One of the arguments made about the simi-automatic imitation AK47 used in some mass shooter events is that nobody needs an assault rifle.

As far as it goes, that is true. It just doesn't go very far. Some people WANT one (for non-nefarious purposes), and that should be enough.

In the military version of the AK47 the bullet used is designed to both spin and sort-of wabble as it flies toward its target. It really slices the target up as it enters. That is what would happen on the battlefield.

It does not travel as fast or as far as the other three, but it is very effective when it hits its target. If the target is living, it is probably going to die or be badly maimed.

The ammunition for the military version of the AK47 is not readily available to the general public. There are about a dozen complicated forms to fill out to buy a limited quantity, IF one is allowed to buy them at all.

The ammunition for the civilian version of this rifle is designed to spin (as are almost all rounds of ammunition - it's called "rifling"), but it does not wabble. It is more easily purchased.

The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The M&P 15 is similar, though it fires a much smaller bullet — .223 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .30-inch rounds used by the AK-47.

Why would anyone own a so-called "assault rifle" and why should they be allowed to do so?

The answer lies in the fundamental concept of liberty and its usurpation by the federal government.

If the government had its way, we would all be driving a Prius (or some other "green" car). Why should any of us be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV, gas guzzling, heavy "killer" cars?

Being run into by a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV would be much more devastating than being hit by a Prius, no? Therefore, a Lincoln Town Car or SUV is much more dangerous than a Prius.

(BTW: States license drivers, not the federal government and driving is a privilege, not a right.)

The answer to the question of why anyone should be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car is simple: because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own a water heater that is not government certified at a certain efficiency level? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own an assault style weapon? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Millions of simi-automatic fire arms are owned by the general public (not all of them imitation AK47s). Only a minute number of them are ever used for illegal purposes.

Some of those owners are collectors; some of them just love to target shoot with them as a sport. They have an innate right to own those guns and the Constitution recognizes the right to "keep and bear" arms.

And if they are called to be in a militia in a time of weapons shortage (not an unlikely event, given the draconian cut-backs to the military budget proposed) or for any other reason, they will have a weapon to use. (Just trying to help our liberal friends understand the real meaning of the Second Amendment.)

Everyone deplores the mass shootings that have occurred over the years in our country. But the problem is not the guns.

In every instance it can be shown that the person wielding the fire arm was mentally ill, emotionally unstable and/or suffered severe social aberrations.

It follows, then, that what we need to do is to recognize the symptoms of these disorders, identify those who exhibit them and to prevent them from possessing lethal weapons as much as possible.

The Second Amendment does not need to be altered, and the government does not need to step on anybody's rights (which they LOVE to do).

The people have a right to "keep and bear arms," and the federal government has no business involving itself in the issue.

9 comments:

Ducky's here said...

And if they are called to be in a militia in a time of weapons shortage (not an unlikely event, given the draconian cut-backs to the military budget proposed)

----
You bringing back the draft, Joe?

Weapons shortage?

Anyway, why don't you run along and do soe research on the early experience of militias in America. Please include Jefferson's idiotic failure to invade Canada with militias and the development of a standing army in America.

It seems to me that one of the reasons the fringe right sounds so whack at times is their really shallow knowledge of U.S. history.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, your concept of "liberty" doesn't seem to involve any regulation at all.

If you really enjoy taking a mini gun to the range it should be legal. That's liberty.

Absolutely ridiculous. But it is consistent with the fringe right's rejection of ideas like community, conflicts of interest and maintenance of the commons.

sue hanes said...


Joe - No one is saying that all guns should be taken away from those who wish to have them. It is just good sense that certain guns are too dangerous to have. Some people stockpile these weapons and they are easily had by these mentally ill shooters - and therefore the mass shootings.

It's just a good ideal to have sensible gun control. It would be good to have background checks - even at the gun shows - and of course better care for mental health - to prevent these happenings from occuring.

Joe said...

Ducky: "Joe, your concept of "liberty" doesn't seem to involve any regulation at all."

Well you seem wrong. But I do believe in minimal regulation...very minimal.

sh: "...certain guns are too dangerous to have."

Did you not catch that the three on the right are "more dangerous" than the one on the left?

They are faster, shoot straighter, fly farther and kill things much bigger than human beings, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

The AK47 is just a popular tool because it seems "cool." There are also uzis, sub machine guns and many others that are around but almost never used in these shootings.

That's because they are not considered cool right now.

It is not the gun, it's the people.



sue hanes said...


Ok Joe - people do kill people - but these people that kill people do it best with guns. Guns with big bad bullets that you show here.

moie said...

The whole charade is a shameful debacle. The games the democrat rats play is some kind of pretzel logic. Reread to further enhance comprehension, the text gets complicated. Reid second guesses this, fake out McConnell to get him to do that. Someone with some smarts on the pub side should go in there with a proverbial baseball bat and shake up "negotiations" considerably, crack some knee caps

Joe said...

moie: "...baseball bat and...crack some knee caps."

If you do that, baseball bats will be banned.

But it's not a bad idea.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - So glad you are finally on board with the concept of Liberty!

Why should a women be allowed to abort an unwanted child?

Simple. Because she wants to. That's Liberty.

Why should someone be allowed to grow and smoke marijuana?

Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty.

Why should gay people be allowed to get married?

Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty.

Why should people be allowed to bring loaded firearms into their workplace?

Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty.


Why should abusive men be allowed to violate orders of protection, threaten their ex-wives and kidnap their children?

Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty.

Welcome to your own definition of Liberty.

According to your logic, there is no Law that can take precedent over your Liberty.

That's ridiculous.

Joe said...

XO: "Why should a women be allowed to abort an unwanted child?
Simple. Because she wants to. That's Liberty."

So, in your mind, murder is liberty. I thought so.

See, abortion is taking the life of a human being.

The fetus is not a giraffe, it is not a bald eagle (whose embrios are protected), and it is not a slug. It is human. Just check its DNA to prove it.

Well, isn't it part of the woman's body? No. Again, check the DNA. It's different!

"Why should someone be allowed to grow and smoke marijuana? Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty."

Agreed. So long as they don't engage in dangerous activities while under the influence (like driving, firing a gun, etc.)

"Why should gay people be allowed to get married? Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty."

OK...if you change the meaning of marriage. Then you need a new word to describe what marriage has always meant. Can you come up with one?

"Why should people be allowed to bring loaded firearms into their workplace? Because they want to. That's liberty."

Actually, that's up to the owner of the workplace, not the federal government.

"Why should abusive men be allowed to violate orders of protection, threaten their ex-wives and kidnap their children?Simple. Because they want to. That's Liberty."

Some liberties override others.

The two rules are: Don't do harm mental, emotional or physical)to another and don't damage or distroy others' property.

"According to your logic, there is no Law that can take precedent over your Liberty."

A typical liberal false conclusion.

Liberty does not equal license.

But you don't understand the difference, do you?