From the poxy New Republic (thanks, I’m kinda okay with the old one circa Calvin Coolidge’s time) comes this breathless statement:
It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.
Well no, that’s not quite accurate. We don’t want to own AR-15s “to murder civil servants and elected officials”, we need them to hold off government agents when they arrive at our door to disarm us — in clear violation of the Constitution (which, lest we forget, said gummint agents swore to uphold as part of their office-taking oath).
And by “hold off” I don’t necessarily mean “kill them” (it’s not murder if they attack you first, BTW, no matter what un-Constitutional law they hide behind); “holding off” also means making them a little more fearful of the consequences of their actions, and a little more reluctant to be statist bullies.
The Stalinist- and Nazi police forces could go door to door and disarm law-abiding gun owners in their respective countries without fear of resistance, simply because the KGB / Gestapo knew that people were either fearful, or willing to comply, or both.
That’s not the case in the United States, of course, because while that might be true in many — or even most — cases, there is a considerable proportion of gun owners in this country who will simply say “fuck you” to the government, and either ignore or else actively resist such efforts at universal disarmament of the population. (And just to reiterate: “resistance” is not “murder”, dipshit.)
And if that resistance “only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger”, then I would respectfully suggest that this is similar to the situation where someone teases an otherwise-quiet dog into attacking, then shoots the dog “because it was vicious”.
If there was an active and heartfelt acknowledgment that while mass shootings and killings are admittedly awful, but the isolated incidents did not provide sufficient cause to disarm everybody, then there’d be no snarls of “molon labe” or “bring body bags” from the gun-owning population.
But of course, the statist politicians (mostly of the socialist ilk, but regrettably some so-called conservatives alike) are not going to let a good crisis go to waste, and want to use these crises to further their goal of totalitarian control of the general population.
That, Mr. New Republic, is what gets us angry and more likely to make those statements that have you pissing in your yoga pants.
As an adjunct to the above, allow me to suggest that anyone who doesn’t yet own an AR-15 but wants to own one (after the confiscationists’ statements last week), my research on “off-the-peg” ARs last week resulted in this consensus input: go to Palmetto State Armory and see what takes your fancy. Mine would be this one:
…or the AR-10, in a non-poodleshooter chambering (albeit more spendy) in the manly .308 Win:
Just in passing, I see that PSA also has a decent-looking AK-47 for sale at what seems to be a reasonable price:
…and for a hundred bucks more, one with a folding stock:
No prizes for guessing what I’d choose, of course, but that’s because I’m already familiar with the AK, even though I lost mine (honest, cross my heart) in that Regrettable Canoeing Accident on the Brazos River lo those many years ago.
Just note that PSA’s stock levels of all their products are, shall we say, depleted — so don’t shilly shally around.
Anyway, let’s just call this addendum a Public Service Announcement (PSA)… [groan]