Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Choosing Sides...

Here's another out-of-the-park hit by my fellow MA inmate Matt DeVito of Down Range Firearms Training:

It’s Time to Choose a Side (This Will Offend You)
As the impending legislation of an “Assault Weapons Ban”, and a “High Capacity Magazine Ban” draws imminently closer, I’ve noticed a distinct rift amongst gun owners. This gap, or dare I call it a “separation”, was evident BEFORE Aurora, Colorado, before Clackamas, Oregon, and before Newtown, Connecticut. This split has existed between those who consider themselves “action shooters”, and those who feel they are “sportsmen” for quite some time.
The whole thing is excellent, simply excellent - go take a few minutes and read it. Then read it again. Grab another cup of coffee, then hit it one more time, just to be sure you catch it all. Matt touches on the animosity between different shooting disciplines; the rift between the hunters and target shooters; the various and sundry factions that we divide ourselves into so that we make the antis lives easier. Matt doesn't get it, and neither do I.

I've had discussions with friends that hunt over the concept of the "Fudd" shooter - I've been accused of not liking hunters, and nothing could be farther from the truth. The "Fudd" mindset - the "I have my shotgun and my deer rifle, the rest of the guns can be melted into slag" or the "you can't hunt with an AR" or any other "screw you, I've got mine" state of mind - bothers me greatly. One need look only to the UK to see that the gun-grabbers and haters of freedom have zero intention of allowing the hunters to keep their high powered sniper rifles deer rifles or their weapons of war pump-action shotguns.

Matt doesn't understand why we have to fight amongst ourselves when we have a perfectly valid enemy to fight together. I'm with him on that. I don't understand why we insist on making the antis lives easier by "I'm a gunowner but" type statements - why we are so eager to sell out the black rifles, or the handguns, or the long distance rifles, or the cheap handguns, or.... you get the idea. We're all in this together - the antis want all of our guns, not some of them, not only certain ones, ALL OF THEM.

The recent legislation passed in New York should have been a clarion call to gun owners across America. Ditto the new gun ban proposed by Diane Feinstein - the bill that she's had crafted for over a year, but had to wait for the Newtown tragedy to so inflame emotions before she could submit it, knowing otherwise it would fall immediately. Ten round magazines, previously the gold standard in "safe" and "acceptable" for capacity, are all of a sudden no longer acceptable; now the limit is seven. How much longer before they decide five is the magic number, and autoloaders are now limited more than revolvers?


Get that through your thick skulls. The gun grabbers are like the Terminator - they have the complete and utter revocation of the Second Amendment as their goal, and they will not stop until they have achieved it. These are the people that claim - with a straight face - that guns are "easy to get" and "less regulated than teddy bears" - despite thousand upon thousands of gun laws. Despite restricting us in 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994; despite hacking away at our enumerated right to the point where we have to have a permit to own a firearm in Massachusetts or an FOID card in IL or a pistol permit in NJ or ...

They want a world where only the police and military - and their private security forces - have guns. Not you, not me, not the millions of good, honest people out there that deserve the best tools for self defense. Just the rich and powerful and famous, and to hell with the rest of us. If they manage to gut the Second Amendment, Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Brady will still have armed guards - because they know that bad people are still out there and still capable of doing bad things. They don't give a rat's ass about "the children" or "public good" or any of the other reasons they claim to want gun control.

They want power, plain and simple, and the only thing standing between them and absolute power is an armed populace under the Second Amendment.

Which is why they must divide us in order to conquer - please, don't let them do that. Refuse to let them drive wedges between us. Don't allow them to draw a magic line between a "good" magazine capacity or bore size or number of guns you can buy in a day/week/month/year and the "bad" number. Because they have shown us that today's "good" number can easily become tomorrow's "bad" number. They are not to be trusted, because they are the enemies of freedom.

And as long as we stand together, we can stop them.

That is all.


Soap Box One said...

Obliterating the 2A is not their end goal, but rather a stepping along the enlightened path toward totalitarianism. It's what the so-called "progressive" left is ALL about. The abolishing of individual liberty is the keystone of their ruinous ideological arch. As long as we, as individuals, retain that liberty and the power that accompanies it, the totalitarian movement will be thwarted.

United we stand.

Divided we fall.

It's that simple.

Obama gets it. Everything he says and does is geared toward pitting various subsets of our population against one another. Division, hate, fear, and strife are to the left what hammers, drills, and saws are to a carpenter.

Alan said...

I think that too many people are willing to sell out anything that doesn't affect them directly. Why should a Fudd draw a line in the sand over EBRs when he doesn't have any, or ammo/magazine restrictions when he doesn't even shoot a box of ammo in a year?

We may recognize the slippery slope and the need to hang together but most people aren't made that way.

Look at all the people today that are happy the cops burned out Dorner. They don't realize or care that it could be them next time but there they are licking the jackboots of the police state.

Will Brown said...

To take a different tack; consider baseball with its AL/NL artificial distinctions. Homo sapiens is a very competitive species so why would we expect any different activity on this particular artificial division? The trick is to make an advantage out of a known potential weakness, something I think the NRA gets a lot of undeserved flack for trying to do.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to organize an alternative political alliance based around the BoR explicitly IMO. Make a positive out of the difference of shooter interests that exist through that mechanism. You're in sales Jay, I'm sure you see the possibilities this offers.