21 thoughts on “Mass Produced Mayhem”

  1. And even if they didn’t have a sporting purpose, it wouldn’t make a difference – Right?

  2. one of the things they picture in the article is the striker 12 shotgun which is a DD under then NFA

  3. It shouldn’t, nick, but saying a gun has no legitimate use other than to mow down kindergartners is something we have to counter. If the public believes that, they’ll support banning them. You can make the self-defense argument too, because that’s also important.

  4. Gotta love this quote in the executive summary:

    Senator Barack Obama has stated as recently as his convention acceptance speech that it is imperative that criminals be denied the use of assault weapons.

    Well now that’s taking a stance! Of course criminals should be kept away from weapons, the question is who is a criminal according to the Messiah. I have a feeling the man feels it is criminal to believe in freedom and in keeping most of what one earns.

    Hold on to your hats.

  5. Someone should probably tell them that their scary picture of an AK-47 on page v is not, indeed, an AK-47 (it’s not anything in 7.62×39).

    Not that I’m hung up on minutiae, but they really should at least make a pretense of trying to understand what they want to control.

  6. I wonder if we are not implicitly accepting the battle on the anti’s terms when using the term “assault weapon”. We all know it is a nonsense label but it is useful to them in framing the issue. What about “sporting rifle” instead? Any other ideas?

  7. We are. I always use that term in quotes if I remember. I prefer the term “rifle” because it’s really no different than any other.

  8. the brady campaign smells blood.

    they know with Obama in office they’ll get an AW ban

    we’ve got to move aggressively against that.

    first – NEVER accept the ‘sporting purpose’ BS. ALWAYS dismiss and state the 2A has NOTHING to do with sport, and EVERYTHING to do with military rifles (Heller notwithstanding).

    Next, fire up a n SNBI movement. get a form letter that says ANY AW ban will be violently resisted – that our position is if an AW ban is passed in contradiciton to the 2A that it will be justification for a new American revolution – to restore the original principles of 1776. get a couple million people to send in those letters. get a national organization to support that position, form our own if we have to. pledge our lifes, fortunes and sacred honor. push the issue!

    Are gun owners serious? Will we lay down? Or will we stand up?

  9. Pointing out the flaw in their “sporting purpose” arguments isn’t so much about the purpose itself as it is to demonstrate that they are lying.

  10. Are gun owners serious? Will we lay down? Or will we stand up?

    In terms of revolution, people will lay down. We either win this politically, or we don’t win this. The time to act is now. What are you doing this election to help prevent an Obama Gun Ban from becoming a reality?

  11. Illspirit is right. It’s to point out they are lying. Also, the public is much more open to the idea that you can use an AR-15 for sport than needing one to defend your home. Most people keep pistols and shotguns for that. I do think we should push the self-defense argument, but if you push Scott’s argument, people just look at you like you’re fucking nuts. Try it sometime with someone who isn’t a gun owner, and not part of the shooting culture.

  12. The ones who are quick to call for violent revolution are always the first to admit defeat politically. It is not yet lost. We can still win. What are you doing to help?

  13. Sebastion,

    I’m not sitting around pretending that the ‘sporting purpose’ argument is going to win this politically.

    They are going to laugh at you as they take your guns while you claim, “but i only use them for my sport”.

    Patrick Henry said – “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

    I’m not advocating revolution. I’m advocating downright force to preserve our liberty.

    It will take a miracle for McCain to win, hell, even for the Republicans to maintain enough seats to even mount a defense against the coming AW ban. McCain is floundering around desperatly because the fix is in. Between the media in the tank for Obama, the rampant election fraud that is occuring, and McCains own erratic philosophy his campaign is crashing.

    If Obama wins the ONLY way we’re going to win is sometime in the future to be willing to DIE to preserve our liberty.

    Six months ago after Heller I was up-beat that we could win politically. Amazing how quickly it can change.

    What am I doing? Same as you, talking, posting, trying to convince people that Obama is a dangerous man. But, the same people that ‘aren’t in the gun culture’ think I’m f-ing nuts to to say that.

    I fear that we are going to see the demise of America within my lifetime, because few can even talk about the idea of DIEing to preserve liberty. Sad.

  14. Dude, I carry a gun for self-defense all the time. I’m not a “but I only use them for sport!” guy. Firearms are used for sport, however. And the public is receptive to that idea. There are three basic things the public supports firearms ownership for:

    1. Self-defense
    2. Sport Shooting
    3. Hunting

    Those are the three things we need to drive home. When you start talking revolution to ordinary people. By ordinary, I mean people who are either casual shooters, hunters, and especially non-gun owning people who are sympathetic to having a gun for the above three reasons, they think you’re a kook and no longer want to talk to you. Why? Because we are a long ways from revolution in this country.

    I appreciate that you’re trying to convince people that Obama is a dangerous man. I agree with you on that. But political action is more than standing on a soap box and shouting, and hoping someone listens to you. Have you volunteered for any pro-gun campaigns? Done any phone banking on behalf of sportsmen’s issues? Done a precinct walk? Done literature drops? Put out lawn signs? Distributed lawn signs? Bumper stickers? All these things make a big difference.

    I don’t disagree with you that the Second Amendment is the ultimate fail safe, but it’s a reset button not to be pressed lightly. Certainly not to be pressed just because the people choose Barack Obama as president. Whether or not people are willing to stand up and die for the constitution is a bridge we can burn when we come to it. Right now, we’re not there yet.

  15. Sebastion,

    I’m not advocating violence “just because the people choose” a President I don’t like. I’m not advocating revolution. I don’t want to replace the current gov’t with another form. I just want the government to be true to the Constitution.

    If the gov’t says it is willing to kill me to inforce an un-Constitutional law, then there is no point in arguing legalities. The passage of a general AW ban is I believe one example of that case.

    It took our found fathers several years to come to the point of advocating the revolution. I’m happy to follow John Adams example and start talking about it now when there is still a bridge to burn.

    btw, please don’t call me ‘dude’. I’m 52 years old and it hurts my ears :)

  16. “Next, fire up a n SNBI movement. get a form letter that says ANY AW ban will be violently resisted – that our position is if an AW ban is passed in contradiciton to the 2A that it will be justification for a new American revolution -”

    By doing this you alienate a majority of American citizens, thereby guaranteeing that any actual attempt at violent revolution will be unsuccessful. Besides, violent revolution is a last resort, reserved for the time when the country has gone to hell in a handbasket and ALL other alternatives have been exhausted without any advancement of our cause. We aren’t even close to that yet.

    Do you really think you’d get most Americans on your side to violently overthrow the government at this point in time? Trust me you won’t. You won’t even get a tiny fraction of them.

  17. “The phrase “mass produced mayhem” is taken from the federal Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s description of assault weapons in its
    “Assault Weapons Profile” (April 1994).”

    huh, wonder who was running that monkey house then? sounds a little like a ralph nader label…”ebr’s; unsafe at any speed”…and like corvairs, they are-with a moron at the wheel.

    but in this case the puffy propoganda comes from the gov bureaucracy ffl’s and shooters pay to enforce legislation, not enact or editorialize it…and those anti sentiments remain within the heirarchy of batf, awaiting the right environment to grow into full obstructive/preventive/confiscative mode.


Comments are closed.