by George A. Yesthal
This will probably be one of my less popular writings
I found these statistics that show that semi automatic assault rifles (included in “other” along with machine guns), were responsible for only 0.1% of the violent crimes and wondered, why the sudden focus on restricting ownership of these types of guns when handguns are used in the majority of all violent crimes? The answer is this: Assault rifles are the weapons most likely to be chosen and used by an armed militia of citizens to protect against the government.
It is important to note that in the category of, "other" are included, knives, axes, bats, irons, hammers, etc., so the actual number of assault rifle "assaults" are significantly less than 0.1 per cent.
The government would have us believe that an assault rifle was used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shootings. It was not. Despite all the media reports that an assault rifle was used by Lanza, none was found at the crime scene. Assault rifles are the weapons most likely to be successfully deployed in a militaristic engagement and there are many owned by private citizens in the U.S. today. Is it any wonder the government wants them Gone?
There are many of you that will (quasi-patriotically) defend the stance of your government and say, “Well, if people will use them against the government they must be traitors and criminals, so they must be taken away.” Anyone expressing such an attitude is completely missing the big picture and they are not asking the right question, which is, “What has our government got planned that they should be concerned about the prospect that we might use semi-auto rifles in defense against our government?” People not asking that question are being irresponsibly short-sighted. In fact, a "patriot" must, by definition, be willing to defend against "ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.”
It’s also important to realize that what the government likes to differentiate as an “assault” rifle is ONLY different from a semi-automatic hunting rifle in that it will usually sport a composite (instead of wood) stock and this tends to give it what the public collective psyche identifies as “ASSAULT” simply because it looks military. Trust me when I say that a Ruger model 44 or a Remington model 750 or Benelli R1 are EVERY bit as lethal as an AR 15, SKS or AK 47 and if it comes down to civil war (God forbid), a wealth of these innocuous-looking rifles would see plenty of field service and take WAY more than their bag limit. The fact of the matter is that with today’s after-market of militaristic accoutrements, a common sporting rifle can be dressed up to present a monster that would send Diane Feinstein into paroxysms.
SO…here’s the breakdown:
Used in murders and/or violent crimes:
Pistol revolver 24.7
Pistol derringer 1.4
Rifle 11.1(includes single shot, lever, pump and bolt action)
Assault rifle (semi-automatic) & machinegun (fully automatic) 0.1
Has anyone considered this: When you advocate gun control, it is tantamount to advocating gun violence. Let me explain: If you endorse “gun control”, you are advocating a law whereby I must turn in my guns to comply with a “buy back.” Now, this sounds so very civil and fair…but it’s not. When you consider that I will get probably 1/3rd the fair market price I paid for the item, how is that “fair”? Also, if I should decide that my gun is not for sale at any price and I am forced to turn it in anyway under the threat of ARMED officers, no matter what you choose to call it, at the end of the day, it’s extortion and/or theft. And keep in mind, that the only way the "authorities" knew that I had a semi-auto in the first place, is because I legally complied with the law of the land, and registered my legal purchase instead of buying one on the black market.
Now, of course you know what the penalty will be if I resist. I will be forcefully restrained and taken away(kidnapped), call it “in custody” if you like. AND if I decide to defend my rights with my firearms, an armed conflict will ensue in which I will more than likely be the loser, i.e. KILLED. So how can you justify supporting “gun control”? Because all you are really doing is getting hired thugs to do what you are not courageous enough to do yourself. Does that make you feel somehow more justified and safe?
There are approximately 421,500 registered machinists in the U.S. alone (there are many capable individuals who are not registered). Probably half of those machinists are competent enough to build crude to superb quality guns. If 1/10th of those machinists are willing to break the law to start a VERY lucrative illicit business building guns for the right price after the strict gun ban is imposed, that makes 21,075 illegal gun manufacturers in the U.S. providing guns to no one but outlaws. Now, we know full well what chaos we had to deal with during the prohibition of alcohol and what a raging success the wars on drugs and prostitution have been. Is there any reason to assume that prohibition of even just assault rifles will fare any differently? Can anyone make a sane argument why this same chaos will not take place? That is not even taking into account, illegal arms being smuggled into the U.S. by foreign sources. And keep in mind that during this scenario, law-abiding citizens will be woefully out-gunned by a criminal element. Does this make any sense?
Finally, people frequently cite the statistic that in Europe where gun ownership is very staunchly restricted, crime rates are less than in the U.S. It's also true that this is the way it has been since guns have been around and Europe has a long standing history of curtailing the ownership and use of guns. But Europe also has a nasty history of despotic takeovers and populous subjugation.
Wanna know why?
Because in a culture that was feudal for most of its history, it was the monarchy and their chosen elite, barons, dukes, lords of all caliber, that enjoyed the right to hunt and own guns for the purpose of keeping their vassals in line and that's largely the way it remains to this day.
Also, their history has been peppered with dictators and despots who in their effort to make easier such methods as genocide and all manner of subjugation to keep things just the way they saw fit, adopted the philosophy that gun control was essential to their plans.
So if someone supports gun control, they have to decide if it is worth it to relinquish any control they might have in the option of insuring that their society doesn't suddenly morph into a tyrannical monarchy or dictatorship simply because the government has no one to govern THEM.
Now, for those people that answer that question by pointing out that it is the lack of guns that assures lack of crime, so it's worth whatever freedoms we need to give up, I say THAT is a paranoid and gutless expression of zero self-confidence and faith in their fellow man, and then I will point to Switzerland, where EVERY household is required to own at least one gun and the fact that they have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
Here endeth the lesson.