This might take a while....
Here's the thing: There are a significant minority of our politicians who want to disarm the rest of their fellow citizens. They are using the latest atrocity in Sandy Hook Connecticut to further their argument that the government must force the citizens to disarm, or at least give up a very potent portion of our arms. Their recent statements make it clear that they ARE coming for your guns, Constitution and laws be damned. Will they succeed? Maybe, but probably not. But they keep trying.
"No one needs a rifle capable of firing 30 rounds before reloading for hunting"....
They are, actually, correct. Few hunting situations need more than 1 or two rounds available (yes, I know that there are exceptions, Bear with me).
The thing is, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nor is there any reason we should be limited in how many rounds our firearms can hold. The right to bear arms is designed to ensure the free state still exists in the country.
There are those in our government who want to remove your right to have certain types of firearms and firearms with certain features. Features which DO make your firearms more versatile. They aren't used for hunting, but they can be used to defend our freedoms.
When it comes right down to it our right to keep and bear arms is, at the sharp end of the stick, about the threat to kill cops and other agents of the government. Nope, I'm not crazy, nor am I advocating that we start shooting policemen or Federal agents or National Guardsmen. But, ultimately, our right to keep and bear arms is to allow us to defend and keep our lives and our freedoms. We have that right. Just as our forefathers chose to rebel against the legitimate government of the time and to determine their own destiny, we too have that right. Our founding fathers rose up in armed rebellion and they preserved that right for us in the Constitution, just in case the government that they created should morph into a monster which controlled the citizens rather than the other way around. Just in case the protections and limits on governmental power over the citizens they put into the Constitution were subverted or ignored. Just in case we needed to follow their lead and refuse to be subjects anymore.
They didn't put anything in the Second Amendment about hunting nor self defense nor defense of our homes.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
Yes, at the time, they were referring to flintlock muskets and black powder rifles. That was the technology of the time. They did not, however, place limits on the types of arms. They did not limit the "arms" to smoothbore muskets, nor to short barrels, nor only shotguns, nor certain calibers.... they stated "arms". Arms that were, effectively, the same as those possessed by the agents of the government. Arms that were available to everyone.
"The Security of a Free State" Likely that is the real reason that the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. They knew how repressive a government could become. After all, had the King played fair and straight, they likely would not have ever fomented revolution, nor chosen to revolt and send the Declaration of Independence to the king. But the King and his henchmen chose to treat the colonists poorly and the Untied States is the result. The framers of the Constitution were well aware, having just fought a war of secession, how important arms equal (or nearly equal) to those of their oppressors were. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor home defense, nor personal defense. It is, ultimately about control. It is the single part of the Constitution which keeps the power in the hands of the people. Should the agents of the state, choose to push things far enough, there can (and should be) a second American Revolution. While I think it should be the last choice, it should always be an option.
No one wants to see that happen. and I sincerely hope that it never does. But if the folks who would wish to begin disarming you succeed in starting with "assault weapons", or by limiting the capacity of your magazines, they will, ultimately leave you with no way, no power, to resist the agents of the state when they become ever more repressive. Next will be "sniper rifles" then "too powerful" cartridges, then handguns, and they will leave you with .22 caliber rifles and shotguns. Nothing with which to revolt against the agents of the State.
Yes, I am talking about armed revolution. Shooting agents of the state. Killing cops and Federal agents and National Guardsmen, if it should come to that.
Yeah, I find that idea disturbing. I hope you do too.
But the fact that at this time we CAN revolt, CAN push back, CAN say "enough!" and back it with force, is one of the largest deterrents against government overreach. If Feinstein and her ilk have their way, they'll take some more of that ability away from you and I and other like minded citizens.
Estimates for the number of "assault rifles" (AR, AK, and other military style rifles) range as low as 3,000,00 to a high of 18 million. The number of owners of these types of rifles range from 2 million to 8 million. I can find no definitive statistics for these.
If we take the low end, that is 2 million people who own at least one (and likely more than one) of these style of rifles. Likely the count is somewhere close to 4 times that number.
Make the ownership of these illegal, you create criminals out of mostly law abiding citizens. And forced confiscation, even with compensation, is still theft.
If 10% refuse to give up their suddenly illegal rifles then they become criminals and have little to lose. If only 10% stand up and say "no" they become felons and rebels and enemies of the state. If only 10% resist, then there are now somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 people who are rebels and criminals. These are people who know how to use their weapons, generally have more than one, and who would feel that this is a line they cannot let the government cross. People who would be willing to be jailed or become a martyr before allowing themselves and their children and fellow citizens become slaves rather than citizens..
There are about 800,000 cops and other police in the US. This includes city cops, state policemen, County sheriffs and other policemen.
Add in agents of the state, ATF, FBI, and US Marshals, one million or so.... if every one of them chooses to obey unconstitutional orders (more likely than you think). So not more than 5 agents of the government for each "resistor". Maybe a lot less than that. In reality the people that could be used in raids is about 20% of that (someone has to be a policeman rather than a raider). So not less than one resistor for every enforcement agent. Likely an even less attractive number (for them, not us).
Should the police and federal agents choose to begin to raid in order to take those remaining rifles away, there will likely be bloodshed. A lot. On both sides. How many newly minted criminals will be on guard after the first wave of arrests? How many and for how long will the raids persist? How many policemen will continue when their buddies fail to come home at the end of the day? Sure some of us will likely be arrested (or shot). But how many more agents and police will be shot or killed as well? When they stack up outside your neighbors door and you express your displeasure at that act, maybe with a firearm, will that discourage them? Or your friend chooses to resist instead of turning in his firearms...then what? Yeah, he goes down, but how many go down with him? That "stack" of 25 officers outside the door in the middle of the night becomes 20 shortly thereafter when they are expected.....then 17, then 12, then 8. How long until they choose not to do their job? There are a lot more resistors than policemen.
How long until we run out of police? It is, sadly, an honest question.
How long until the police refuse to come to work? Until the sight of a uniform or a police car is enough to make them a target? When the general citizenry becomes an enemy of the police? When the families of the police are in danger.....When someone publishes names, and addresses and personal vehicles and tags..... And parents names and addresses.....Sisters and brothers. How long will the police do their job then?
How long until the State must show its true colors? Must declare martial law or take other steps to keep its citizens in line? At what point does an unpopular law cause enough damage and bloodshed that the populace will stand up and say "Enough!" ?
What about all of those other rifles that are not "Assault rifles"? How many of them will be used to show defiance? How often will they speak from 1--2--500 yards or more away? How many of THOSE will be used in defiance? How many official vehicles will be destroyed, even if their occupants are not? Government buildings?
And what happens then? Call in the Army? The Marines? Will they follow orders? Some will. Some won't. That pesky Constitution that they swore an oath to might get in the way....
Think it can't happen? I didn't think that people like Feinstein would have the guts to call for theft and confiscation of firearms. When any government official would ever advocate for such a blatantly un-Constitutional action. I find it disturbing that one of the biggest cheerleaders of the anti-gun movement is the Chinese. Think about it. How would they gain with a disarmed US population?
This issue could well break this country. Could lead to armed revolt against our government. Lead to deaths and destruction. Lead to a second revolution. Lead to the death of the US as we know it. Not all those who cleaned out the inventory of "assault rifles" and ammunition and pistols were first timers or investors... Many were just stocking up. Many were planning ahead. Many were looking at the same thing I am right now.
I leave you with this:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things
have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night
to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and
had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass
arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of
the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling
with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on
the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had
boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs
would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport
and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would
have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even
more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and
simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
We have much more than axes and hammers and pokers. And we have the knowledge and wherewithal to use them. And we have the lessons of history to inspire us. Some of us love freedom enough.
How can this end well? If only 1% resist, then perhaps they lose, but so does the country. No one wins. But that does not mean that the struggle for freedom is not worth the fight. It does not mean that freedom dies when they lose.
I sincerely hope they do not turn me into a criminal nor force me to choose.....I sincerely do not want to fight my country and the police. It won't end well. For any of us. But I am OK with that, if it should come to pass. The alternative is worse.
ETA: I ain't the only one thinking this
Co-host Chris Cebollero and I discuss Ebola hysteria, mass-shootings, and whether cameras are a good idea in the back of an ambulance. Give us a listen, an...
13 hours ago