Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Ignorance and Elitism: the root of gun control

Statue outside of U.N. building in NYC
On the evening of 10-16-2012 we saw a glimpse into the future of a potential second term for President Obama. One filled with ignorance and elitism. I don’t say that lightly so please allow me to explain, in detail.

Before I do, a brief review of the previous assault weapon ban is in order. The name is quiet misleading, and purposefully so. The intention of the initial bill, which was law from 1994-2004, was to confuse people with invented terms such as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘deadly features’. The hope was, by using evil sounding terminology and showing scary pictures, semi-automatic weapons and what were ‘standard capacity’ magazines (now referred to as high capacity magazines) could be banned.

The ruse worked and the bill became law. The result? Weapons were banned simply because of the way they looked. Magazines with over 10 rounds were banned. For the law abiding gun owner, it was a nightmare. For the criminals? Business as usual.

In 2004 the bill sunsetted, meaning it expired. Much contention about the sunset clause abounds. Would the bill have passed had the NRA not slipped it in? Probably not, but the NRA made a gamble with our Rights and gave them up, in the hopes the bill would sunset 10 years later. As it turned out, it did. At what cost? For those who won’t recall, at the height of the ban, a Glock 17 round magazine with 17 round capacity would sell for $125. That’s just one example.

Ten years of invented terminology has also permeated the landscape and phrases like “high capacity” and “assault weapon” are in common use. The mental impacts of that ten year period cannot be understated. Many people think the phrase assault weapon means a weapon that is fully automatic, which is simply not true. That leads us to where ignorance comes into play.

Ignorance. Make no mistake, the President has access to the data, he isn’t ignorant. He knows that ‘assault weapons’ aren’t the problem. Neither are inexpensive firearms. He is, however, counting on the general public and their ignorance to achieve his goals. Terms like “assault weapons” and AK-47 will be bantered about over and over, attempting to scare people and play on their ignorance.

YOU will need to take up the fight. Inform your friends, family and coworkers about what the ill termed ‘assault weapon’ really is. It’s simply a semi-automatic weapon that appears to be more ‘deadly’ than it’s hunting equivalent.

Elitism. This is where the meat and potatoes are found. We can clearly see it in comments like those from tonight’s debate. He tries to disparage inexpensive firearms as somehow being a “criminals choice”. Again, those who would disarm you are playing on the ignorance of the public.

Criminals don’t legally acquire guns. Generally they steal them. Why would a criminal steal a less expensive item, over the more expensive one? It’s absurd.

What they really don’t want are the Plebeians having a means of self defense. You see, when a person has it in their ability to defend themselves, it generally leads to an improved sense of self-worth, well-being and their becoming more independent. That doesn’t exactly square with a subservient and ignorant populace. It also doesn’t bode well for forms of government such as socialism or communism.

When someone says we need to get rid of “cheap guns”, as the President did tonight, what they really mean is “We don’t want poor people being able to defend themselves”. In todays age of technology, even the most inexpensive firearm is not dangerous. Sure it may not function with the reliability one may want, but it’s better than a pointy stick or baseball bat.

In the second Presidential debate of 2012 Barrack Obama may have just handed the election to Mitt Romney. It’s ironic really. Mitt Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, signed a permanent assault weapons ban. We can look back and know that Mitt Romney wasn’t ignorant when he signed that bill. In the eyes of gun owners, a few short years ago, Mitt Romney shared the same company as Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. Now, as a Presidential candidate, he opposes some of the very bills he signed off on.

While it is uncertain how Mitt Romney will actually deal with any firearms related bills should he win, we can now say with certainty what Barack Obama WILL do.

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. “ –Barack Obama 10-16-12

Keep in mind, Congress is needed for another assault weapons ban. No matter which of them wins, we need to make sure that PRO firearm Congressmen and Women are in office to prevent a bill from ever reaching the Presidents desk, no matter who it is. Given Mitt Romneys history and decades of being anti-gun, we can’t put all our faith in his recent change in positions:

“Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.” – Mitt Romney 10-16-2012

Our vigilance is needed, not just for the next month but for the next 4 years and beyond. Those who would wish to strip us of our Rights won’t rest. I also ask you to continue to remember we have a Right to self defense and Right to keep and bear arms, independent of the Second Amendment. Feel free to see my previous articles on Rights found in the article entitled “Enemies Within”.

Prometheus
www.facebook.com/GunReviews
©2012 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and the content is not altered, including this section.

6 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, the only thing is the people whom should really read this blog wont. Too many people rely on the 'main stream media' and never learn to question things, or check with other sources on information they put out. So people will continue to live in their dream world of gun toting mad-men with AK-47s running around and only another 4 years of our current administration can change that. Hopefully I'm wrong, even Obama admitted most gun violence in his home town of Chicago wasn't because of 'assault-weapons' like the lady asking the question probably thinks. I was surprised he actually said that, then he brings up the need for another AWB like the '94 one, lost me again Mr. pres...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know gun people in general are sorta one issue people. And tend not to see the big picture. This blog post is an example of just that. What Obama personally feels about firearms is more then likely irrelevant. But first lets go back to the 94 AWB. Did anyone stop to think why the ban happend at the time and place? Clinton may hate guns may have wanted them out of every citizens hands. But up untill the LA shooting there was no political will to ban certain firearms(side note, ever wander why AK 47 was always used as the bad gun? guess what was used in the LA shootout).
    Obama will not take away your guns. That he said he wanted some kind of AWB again was damn near political suicide on his part. American is more pro gun then it has ever been. There is no will to renew the AWB. And why would he wait till now or second term to ban them? He has had more reason to then most every president before him. The shooting of a senator? The biggest mass shooting on US soil ever? And still nothing from the whitehouse about gun control. This whole thing is way over blown and the money grubbing NRA is not helping. Now thats not to say there are a few people here and there that are anti-gun zealots. We do have to be on the watch for these people(Chicago i'm looking your way).

    TL:DR Version
    Guns are about politics. Not about some amorphous anti gun conspiracy where everyone wants your guns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will The Ban Affect Exports to other countries?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I participated in a professional forum in which educators and practitioners came together to discuss how best to educate and develop Department of Defense military or civilian competencies become more sophisticated as one moves up the chain and develop programs.
    Don Blankenship

    ReplyDelete
  6. Romney had no choice on the awb. His veto would have been overridden by the dem majority. He actually altered the bill to be much less bad than it was. MA gun owners are happy with his role in the awb because it would have been worse without him.

    SCOTUS is the real issue here. When they repealed the laws banning handguns in DC/Chicago the left of SCOTUS had a fit. They said they are waiting on a "wiser" future congress to say the second amendment is NOT an individual right nor a state right.

    Obama has already put 2 more far left anti gun justices in SCOTUS...as well as 125 lower court judges. If Obama wins re-election and just one of the five pro-gun justices who will be over 80 by 2017 gets replaces...you can bet your ass that the second will be redefined and there will be no progun victories until a liberal justice is replaced...which could be decades as its a life position.

    So there is your real danger. Not a bill, but an anti-gun supreme court. The beauty of it also is that there wont be major backlash as with a bill if SCOTUS changes the meaning.

    ReplyDelete