Skip to comments.WHY IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (OR SOME IN IT) WORRIED ABOUT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES?
Posted on 04/12/2003 7:11:11 PM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
A story was just posted about an Iraqi shopkeeper defending his shop against looters when U.S. troops arrived, were lied to and told the man was a Saddam loyalist, and shot the man to death with heavy machine gun fire. That and the battle for Baghdad are the biggest arguments against government interference in citizen ownership of semiautomatic rifles of ANY configuration that I know of.
The Iraqis saw their heavy weaponry (i.e. mortars, tanks, APCs, heavy machine guns, artillery, etc., etc.) destroyed very quickly in the recent conflict. That left them with little but AUTOMATIC rifles, portable machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades with which to fight. They were annihilated when they tried to attack our forces with such weapons. Our soldiers have even been quoted as saying that it was a horrific bloodbath which left them in shock that so many would die needlessly.
The U.S. public (except for a very small minority of lawless thugs) have ANY of the items just mentioned. Why are we a threat with semiautomatic rifles of ANY configuration against the U.S. government? What could we do IF WE HAD AUTOMATIC RIFLES? Almost nothing in the long-term. I simply don't understand the continuing push to outlaw SEMIAUTOMATIC "assault" rifles which are close to becoming usless in a war against a well-equipped military force with air power at it's disposal.
Seems to me more and more that the real purpose for eliminating rifles and handguns from public hands is eventual oppressive government. Government officials want to tell us how much in taxes to pay, what to think, were to live, what job to do, and eventually which unnecessary wars to fight for the furthering of GOVERNMENT aims instead of for the right to a free society. If the public has such weapons they are not a threat to the government as a whole, but are a threat to local officials who might want to become abusive and don't want ANYONE questioning anything they do. The government at large is not threatened and will not be threatened by any coordinated attempt at overthrow as it would not only be unattainable and a massacre but the very concept of government at will without any regard for the concerns of citizens is what is threatened.
The government as a whole can continue as they please but could not allow government at the local level to become abusive as groups of citizens would rebel and creat major problems requiring the higher level officials to step in and kill and bunch of citizens and restore order. Therefore, if the citizenry has a justifiable complaint and demands relief, the government will more than likely step in and give relief...by making the officials in charge rule justly in order to avoid conflict. This is not to say that such citizens want to (or even could) overthrow the government at the national level. Quite the opposite. If the government rules justly, the armed citizenry would support and defend said government as they did at the beginning when the nation was founded. If Iraq had been ruled properly, the citizens of that country would have rallied to the aid of the government and our troops EVEN WITH AIR POWER AND HEAVY WEAPONRY would have had an extremely difficult time taking ground (Vietnam). When government rules in a wicked way, it loses the support of the citizens and eventually leaves itself open to subversion by a wiser enemy. I would beg government officials to punish those who misuse weapons severely (trial and execution) but to leave the law-abiding citizen gun owner alone for the benefit of both the government and the citizens it rules.
Believe you're right. Headed more and more that way. If some foreign power misuses even the smallest weapon, they're obliterated. However, criminals here seem to have pretty much free reign. If they're caught, tried and imprisoned, many are let out to do it all over again. I simply don't get it.
People won't like this, but here is what I think. By running increasingly big deficits, the GOP has already handed the Dems a big issue on a silver platter. Add on what MeneMeneTekelUpharsin proposes, and you are looking at tremendous Democratic gains in congress and President Hillary Clinton come January 2008.
Because Michael Moore says guns are bad, Rosy told him.
You said it. Lawyers have stepped in and basically have assisted in the looting of our freedoms. I can't state my opinions about the crooked lawyers I've known here in public.
Semiautomatic rifles? Since you failed to support the 2nd Amendment right to own and carry C4 plastic explosives in our sneakers on planes, you must be one of those goobermint persons. ;)
Check out this quote from the Yahoo Finance message boards (what it was doing there I don't know).
As for the Iraqis here is the cost of Liberation: 75,000 Iraqi troops KILLED, YES KILLED. They are humans too. Unfortunately, 99% were forced into fighting without surrendering. They had absolutely no weapons that match US technology (Get back to this subject later in the post) 10,000 Iraqi soldiers wounded and or injured. All Iraqi army weapons destroyed.
Especially not the comment They had absolutely no weapons that match US technology. And, that is a LIBERAL posting that diatribe. They KNOW the rifles/handguns we have are no match for the authorities. They KNOW it. So, why do they want them? The Republican party and gun owners must begin their own "Psy-ops" program to educate the public to the value and proper use of rifles and handguns and advocate severe punishment for misuse thereof. Back to you.
It only takes a derringer to assasinate a politician, ask Abe Lincoln..
Thats really the bottom line, the ones that want to control us must first disarm us, plain and simple.
It's not that they have a problem with machine guns vs. semi-autos; it's that they have a problem with GUNS. They draw no distinction between one to the other.
Sick evil corrupt leftist bastards all.
I agree, going up against the U.S military would be scary.
But could anyone imagine an army of 23 million armed citizens, that look just like those that are regular military and many thousands who are former.
Taking on the U.S. people, would be many times more difficult if not almost impossible for any army. If the regular folks were really mad, Iraq would seem manageable or a small problem in comparison. IMHO that is....