GOA Article Comment

The GOA sent me an alert on Facebook, vectoring to an article related to the AWB.

People can and do hunt deer with AK-47s (in certain states, with 5-rd reduced capacity magazines, and with hunting loads). Yeah, I'm against a renewed AWB partly because I really like guns. It's not just that, though, it's because I have the right to own them. The reason the 2nd Amendment exists is to protect the people from a hostile government. Think the colonists would've been able to rise up against the British if they had no rifles? (Or would you have been one of those who welcomed the British domination because they told you they had your best interests at heart?) Rack your brain a bit harder.

I'd love to own an assault rifle, except I can't afford the 20-grand that it takes to buy one because of stupid anti-gun legislation. Since you seem to be confused, assault rifles are machine guns. "Assault weapon" is a bogus term the anti-gun people invented to mean semi-auto versions of assault rifles.

I'm a law-abiding citizen with a permit to carry. (I'll state that I'm an employed, white-collar engineer in high-technology and not a redneck, since most of the anti-gun schmucks stupidly seem to equate armed citizens with the uneducated. Also I have two degrees.) I don't go around shooting people indiscriminately -- I'm one of the good guys. For sure I'm more upstanding than the police officers you see in the news who get caught selling dope from impound and beating on people just because they're not white. I'm probably also a better shot that most police officers, who are allowed to carry handguns most of the time. Handguns are used to save lives -- the lives of the owner and his family. If the police can have handguns, why not law-abiding citizens? What makes the police and military so special? Training? Citizens can get training, but they shouldn't need it to own guns on their own property. They should get training to carry guns in public, same as a driver's license. The real point of that is control: the perception is that police and military are on a short leash and are directed by the government, which is exactly what you *don't* want, at least if you value your freedom. A standing military and police state are the first steps to becoming a non-republic.

The point of carrying handguns out in public is because criminals don't follow laws saying that you can't carry a loaded semi-auto handgun, rifle, or shotgun. (Most states only allow concealed carry of handguns, not shotguns and rifles.) Even if you could carry a rifle, you want to get rid of semi-auto rifles, which probably includes magazine-fed bolt-action, so you'd have a single-shot bolt-action. It'd be tough to save your bacon against multiple attackers with that. Besides, rifle bullets have more penetration than handgun bullets -- or didn't you know that?

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they're illogical, and always appeal to the emotional side of things. "Why can't you accept 'reasonable' bans on guns?" What's reasonable? The 2nd Amendment is quite plain on saying that there's no such thing as a reasonable ban. In fact, I'd say that rules restricting guns are illegal according to the Bill of Rights. Anyone following the NFA, GCA, etc., is actually guilty of breaking the highest law in the United States of America! Of course I'm not saying to break those rules, because the ATF will kick down your door and shoot you if you do. I'm saying that our legislators can't even follow our own laws, so how can they expect normal folks to respect their stupidity?!

Criminals don't follow laws by definition. Any new anti-gun laws, therefore, will be ignored by criminals. The only people that will lose their guns are the people who follow the law. So you'll have criminals with guns and law-abiding citizens without guns. Who's at a disadvantage? Think about it. Can't be more plain than that.