Tags
AR-15, assault rifles, assault weapons, Heller, liberty, machine gun, McDonald, second amendment
Perhaps the most demonized firearm in America today is also the most popular rifle: the ubiquitous AR-15. Anti-freedom Politicians and activists continue to exploit a dishonest tactic arguably hatched by Pete Shields, former Chairman of what is now the Brady Campaign, in 1976: demonizing and hopefully banning any gun as a target of opportunity as a means of getting a foot in the door to ban them all. In 1990, the Violence Policy Center, decided that so called “assault weapons” would be the focus of demonization for the anti-gun left:
the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.
It matters not that rifles are used in a tiny portion of all crimes, and that AR-15s are used in a miniscule portion of that tiny portion of all crimes, restricting freedom and disarming the law-abiding and innocent is the never-ending goal, the Heller and McDonald decisions recognizing that the Second Amendment makes explicit the individual right to keep and bear arms and applying the Second Amendment to the states be ignored and damned.
Fortunately, President Obama’s most recent attempt to disarm the law-abiding after the Newtown attack failed, and in spectacular manner, but he and his sycophants are still making anti-freedom noises, and the left has always been characterized by Chinese-like patience and a unswerving devotion to the long view of history. If only they keep hammering at the wall of the Second Amendment, they’ll eventually breach it, though it take a century or more.
None of this matters to the committed Progressive who demands to know who needs an AR-15. Who needs “high-capacity” (actually, standard size) magazines? Of course, one could always just a buy a double barreled shotgun, and shoot it into the air or blindly through a door, as Vice President Joe “The Sheriff/Double Barrel” Biden has repeatedly suggested.
Who needs an AR-15? This young boy:
A 15-year old boy used his father’s AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year old sister against two burglars at their home just north of Houston, Texas.
Their father is a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constable, and the boy knew what he had to do to keep himself and his sister alive. Around 2:30 PM, two men tried to break in, with one going through the front door and the other in the back.
The boy grabbed the AR-15 and shot at them. The two later showed up at a Tomball hospital. The adult was hit three times and was flown to Memorial Hermann hospital, while the juvenile was taken back to the crime scene.
KHOU TV in Houston noted:
The teenager grabbed his father’s assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
’We don’t try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,’ Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. ‘That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.
Of course, the rifle was not an “assault rifle.” True assault rifles must be capable of fully automatic fire. The AR-15 the boy used was a semi-automatic version of the military M-4, common throughout America.
The danger posed by these burglars was not uncommon, as a neighbor told KHOU:
Neighbors said burglars had recently struck the two houses next door, including the deputy’s home.
’They stole everything — what they have inside. They already did it one time,’ Rafael Cortez said.
It will likely come as no surprise that the media did not identify the race of the burglars.
Good-guys with guns and AR-15’s need guns to combat bad-guys with guns and AR-15’s.
Thanks for sharing this. I hope you don’t mind but I shared this bit on my fb. If it’s not, I’ll be more than willing to take it down. I just know of a few more people who would appreciate this article. Also, keep up the good and interesting work. I’ll continue to follow myself.
-Arianne
Dear Arianne:
Not at all. As long as there is proper attribution–and you certainly did that–reblogging is just fine with me. Thanks!
Reblogged this on AtypicalDisease and commented:
I just had to steal- I know others would appreciate this.
When the race is not identified you can assume non-white. That kind of reporting has become absurd here. “The suspects were described as two males 18-28 wearing a blue shirt and knit hat” is typical of our news. The obvious identifier that could possibly help is always left off. Well left out if they are anything but white. If white it would read “the suspects are described as two white males…
If a gun is used it is always one of three types, assault weapon, ak-47, Saturday night special. Last year I was watching the evening news and some punks shot up a house with “what is being reported as ak-47’s and there are 100’s of spent shell casings in the street” The camera zooms in and there are maybe 10 cases in the street with the little evidence markers. Only problem with the story was the shell cases were short straight wall cases. Either 9mm or 40’s. As is always typical there was a large tribe of onlookers and nobody was talking to the police.
Reblogged this on @NF3L.
I wrote on this subject too a while ago, although from a slightly different perspective.
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/who-needs-an-assault-rifle/
lwk
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are not the “Bill of Needs.” In a free country, the burden of proof should not be on citizens to demonstrate need, it should be on the government to justify any restrictions on freedom. More children drown in swimming pools than get shot, but no one suggests banning privately-owned swimming pools, or even requiring that citizens show a “need” for a pool in order to get a license to own one. Automobile wrecks probably kill more people than all other forms of homicide combined, but no one proposes banning cars, or even a law granting drivers’ licenses only to people who prove that they “need” a POV. (To get a driver’s license, you need only prove that you are not quite stupid enough to run a red light when the license examiner is sitting in the car next to you.) And swimming pools offer no public benefit, and no private benefit other than recreation for their owners. Many people don’t really need personally owned vehicles, and they own cars only because public transportation would be inconvenient. With guns, you have to weigh the harm done with them against the lives saved with them.
Well said Tom!
Reblogged this on A world at war.
This is one of the very few blogs I subscribe to because its probably the most informative I have found. For the most part everyone is polite and intelligent. I would like to share our free gun contest with everyone. No purchase, signing up for spam mail, or personal info is required. Just go to our website and sign up with an email address.
http://DNSguns.com
Far to few, if any of the good stories about using a gun ever make it to main stream media.
Ever notice how the AR15 and AK47 are described as not only assault rifles but as “high powered” assault rifles? Another lie put forth by those who demonize these guns. Neither rifle could be considered high power. At best they are a midrange powered cartridge. The 50bmg which could be considered high power has been banned in some states because it apperantly has the power of an antitank weapon. I have heard that they can blow up large propane storage tanks from over a mile away and that they are capable of blowing a jumbo jet from the sky. Of course the politicians telling us that have never seen one in action and have no idea what they are talking about. curiously I haven’t heard any of them talking about the dangers of the 20mm cannons some people own.
Pingback: Gun Ownership, A Rationale Part 5: Weapon Choice | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns: Securing The Right To Self-Defense And Life, Part 10 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Ben Stein: No More AR-15s. Period. | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: A Rationale, Part 10, 2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Ben Stein: No More AR-15s. Period. – It's Karl