A CBS affiliate in Baltimore wrote about a protest by Second Amendment supporters over the weekend that targeted Maryland’s ineffectual anti-gun laws, noting that the infringements pushed by Governor Martin O’Malley’s citizen control cult in the Democratic Party haven’t had any impact on crime, and that it failed to stop the recent mall shooting in Columbia.
Predictably, supporters of gun control soon rallied to support O’Malley’s failed citizen control law in the comments, including the person known only as “guest” who left the following as part of long-winded comment:
It is way too easy to get a gun. Most of these gun hugging nuts jobs are not law abiding, they are in voilation [sic] of the law by owning illegal guns such as assault rifles they refuse to give up becuase [sic] they think they have a “right” to own them. Why would anyone need OFFENSIVE high powered assault rifles? They are not hunting weapons nor are handguns. For every criminal with a gun, there is a “law abiding citizen” who originally purchased it that the criminal bought or stole it from. Only “law abiding citizens” can buy guns – they are the ones arming the criminals. If you are sick of crime and all the killing, thank a “law abiding gun owner”. If it bothers you a teen had access to an assault rifle to shoot a classroom full of little kids, thank the “law abiding gun owner” who bought that gun and stored it in a manner it could be taken w/o her permission. Why did she need an assalut [sic] rifle in the first place???
Why do Americans need assault rifles? Why, to kill tyrants, of course.
It might come as a shock to “guest” to consider the fact that the Founding Fathers specifically meant to ensure that the citizenry would be armed with military weapons. The thought of weapons for individual defense was secondary (but still there), and hunting was not mentioned at all (though was mentioned later in passing as a character-building pastime, as well as being a frontier necessity).
It would likely further shock this person and those like her to discover that the Founders were aware of the fact that weapons can and would evolve to much faster-firing, longer-ranged arms and even WMDs.
The Founders understood the concept of biological warfare (smallpox was used as a weapon during the siege of Fort Pitt in Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763), a concept going back to the Middle Ages. The atomic bomb and the nuclear age might have been beyond what they could conceptualize, but every arm conceivably carried by an infantryman in a squad today was in use in some form prior to the writing of the Second Amendment. this included multi-shot pistols and hand grenades to early analogues of machine guns (the Puckle gun), to rockets (“red glare” and all), to mortars and other forms of artillery, to faster-firing rifles ( including the Ferguson rifle used in two separate theaters during the Revolutionary War) and even arms that would fall under the wording of some of today’s so-called “assault weapons” bans.
The Girandoni rifle pictured above was created circa 1779, and used a fast-loading 22-round magazines in combination with detachable air cylinders to create a firearm capable of nearly silent rapid fire, hitting the enemy accurately at ranges doubling that of the commonly issued muskets of the period with a .46-caliber ball comparable to the slug used in today’s popular .45 ACP cartridge. In use by elite Austrian units through the Napoleonic Wars, they found their way to America as well, where Thomas Jefferson himself purchased two of them.
Throughout American history, as arms evolved they were adopted by the military and civilian alike; in terms of acquisition, civilians often had the better technology first. Soldiers returning from wars often brought their military-issued arms with them, or purchased these same rifles through government surplus.
The thought of civilians not having military-grade arms is a very recent idea indeed, brought to us by a party and philosophy that derives their ideological roots from systems of governments responsible for the world’s great Democides. Put bluntly, socialism is far more likely to murder and give you “your fair share” of only a mass grave.
The explicit purpose of—an need for—the Second Amendment (to preserve and guarantee a pre-existing natural right) remains utterly unchanged from the day on which it was first ratified.
Government is dangerous to the people, and it is the people’s right, duty and honor to remain dangerous to the government, ensuring that the sort of democide that slaughtered 262 million people in the last century alone doesn’t darken out shores.
Presently, the AR-15, AK-pattern, and other semi-automatic firearms in common use in this nation (the AR-platform is the most widely sold rifle family in the United States) are a rough analogue of the M4 carbine and M16 rifle that equip American military units, having roughly 80-percent parts commonality, a similar and roughly compatible .223 Remington/5.56 NATO cartridge (you can fire .223 in a 5.56, but the other is unwise), and the same magazines and accouterments.
There is no arm that most closely matches the intent of the Founders for citizens to be armed with weapons of military utility than those citizen control cultists loyal only to deadly socialist philosophies call “assault rifles.”
They would be more accurately regarded as “liberty’s teeth,” for without a sufficiently armed citizenry, there is little to stop the ever-present threat of tyranny, and those who would seize advantage of those who would take by force and unconstitutional laws that they would not produce on their own.
And if you think it can’t happen here…