Gun control and related ramblings.

I usually don't opine about political goings-on here. There are so many others who discuss political matters in a more organized fashion than me, and they usually say exactly what is on my mind but in a much more eloquent way. Most of this post is from a draft post I wrote following the tragedy in Aurora and has since been updated to include the events in Connecticut.

Given that one of my hobbies, nay, my main hobby, is building guns from scratch with nothing more than a garage full of tools, I thought it fitting that I speak up about gun control for once.

First, let it be known that I have absolutely no patience for anyone who seeks to strip others of their rights based on a number of innocent people losing their lives.Mind you, this post isn't just about the noise from the recent active shooter events, but from every active shooter incident over the last century. I see every one of these incidents as unfortunate, unnecessary, and evil. No one in these mass shootings asked to be shot or injured, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and subject to the actions of a madman. They were not subject to the actions of millions of other people who committed no crime. Blaming millions of gun owners for the actions of a handful of madmen is insanity of the first degree. Gun control has never been the solution to the problem, it has always been the cause. Evil exists, regardless of available technology.

For years now, we have been told that the obvious solution is to give up a little bit of responsibility and freedom in our continual search for absolute certainty that no harm will ever befall us. Our political leaders have told us that we must not fight back under any circumstances, that we must always submit to evil, no matter what the circumstances. We have been told to leave our defense to "the proper authorities" who are all-but-guaranteed to swoop in and save us from whatever harm may be present. We've been told that we are not responsible enough to provide for our own livelihood, and we cannot be trusted to provide for our own defense. We as a whole have been disarmed over the years through this idea that our political overlords will always protect us and coddle us from cradle to grave. We have had the idea ingrained in our minds that there exists some magical force field around certain specific zones, and within that zone there can never be any sort of danger, nor can any person expect to see harm befall them as long as they remain in that area. I am of course referring to the "gun free zones" such as schools, movie theaters, malls, and the like.  We are told that because there is a law (or just a sign) prohibiting weapons to be brought on those premises,  these things automatically disappear and cease to exist.
It is this thinking, this insistence on the impossible, this demand on everyone to go about their business toothless and disarmed, that has enabled madmen to easily enact their crazed fantasies on society. Those in our world who continually seek to not only disarm us, but to mentally and emotionally cripple us and make us dependent on their complete control, are to blame.Whether a weapon is readily available or not does nothing to hinder the evil or the insane, it only makes them more resourceful and gives them more resolve.

It is high time we rescinded this whole line of thinking. For far too long we have put our trust in gun control and governmental oversight, and have no return on it. We have been promised for years that if we just surrender just a little bit more responsibility, just a little bit more control, and just a little bit more desire to be free, we would see a utopian society that requires no one to think, where violence will not exist, and evil ceases to be.
This is an absolute lie.
We have seen no return on the gun control laws already in place. 
We have given up more and more of our rights as people, and handed them over to our political betters in the name of safety. The sole result has been the equivalent of a mass grave.
Gun control is as much of a failure as any other control, all it does is put money in different hands and guarantee a stack of body bags. It's a guarantee that power will simply be fought over and many people will die over an idea.
Do not simply tell me, "well, we have to do SOMETHING!", and then propose we add more governmental control. We've been relying on them to fix this sort of thing for a long, long time, and it has accomplished NOTHING, unless what you were trying to accomplish was to make chattel out of the common people.




Each and every murderous event has proven to be alike in one way, they were all unavoidable. Not inasmuch as "easy access to guns" like some would foolishly believe, but because of the dedication and obsession that the criminal committing the act possessed. Their actions were not normal actions, and it takes a broken mind to commit these acts.
Normal, everyday run-of-the-mill people do not randomly commit violent acts. They've been raised to respect others and their property, and to avoid violence at all costs. Were that not the case, humanity would likely cease to exist. People who lack this proper upbringing may steal, kill, rob, maim, and otherwise have no respect for their fellow man, but they are in the minority in this country, otherwise this country wouldn't have lasted long before we killed each other off.*

(note to race baiters and people who enjoy reading between the lines and ignoring the point: Note that I said, "in the minority", not "are minorities". I know you'll probably accuse me of being a racist anyway, but I stand behind what I say and the meaning behind it. I could care less if all you see is a boogeyman behind every bush, it ain't my fault. Take your prejudice elsewhere.)

What I have seen over and over is there is always an immediate call to reduce violence by means of government intervention through method control, specifically guns. We aren't terribly worried about knives, cars, explosives, chemicals, poison, or anything else that is capable of hurting someone, because most people still have enough sense to realize that these objects are not the reason a murderer was able to commit murder, the reason is ALWAYS dedication to committing an act of evil. Anything else is just a transport of an idea to a reality. Firearms are no different, and should be seen as no different. They are not objects only to be used by those intent on killing or wreaking havoc on others, that is an unfortunate side effect of their existence, much as deaths caused by drunk driving are an unfortunate side effect of both cars and alcohol. Many who have spoken up about their desire to institute a gun ban of sorts either are poorly learned in history, ignorant on the firearms in general, dishonest and evil, or perhaps even a mixture of all of these. Many are only interested in a solution that "sounds good", even if further review of the solution proves that the solution in question will not have the effect they desire. I liken gun control to trying to put out a grease fire using a cup of water; sure, it SHOULD work, after all, water puts out fires all the time, right? What is being ignored is the underlying problem, that the fire is not what most people are used to, and your "common sense" solution only serves to make the problem spread and become much worse. Attempts to remove weaponry from any society have all too often failed, and failed miserably.
Sure, if you remove all the legally held firearms (no matter whether it is a revolver, a semi-auto rifle, or a single shot .22), the actual act of procuring a firearm through means of theft from a civilian becomes much more difficult. The number of straw purchases decrease. It is no longer easy for criminals to get their hands on normal firearms.
What we will see happen, however, is the same thing we have seen in other countries, where the citizens have been ingrained over time with the mindset that self-defense is wrong and abhorrent, that your own life is not worth risking, even for the sake of another.
We will then see an actual increase in violent crimes, as criminals cease to fear the law-abiding citizens who may or may not have been previously armed, but are now easy pickings, all courtesy of the government and those seeking "the common good".
We will see a return to times wherein the elderly, the infirm, and those of smaller stature are reduced to living a life of fear; fear that they are no longer able to be on equal footing with able-bodied younger people bent on their destruction and harm.
We will see an increase in the loss of life from nature, while humans are natural predators, there are other big fish in this same pond that have a decided advantage over us in the overall scheme of things- these animals know neither good nor evil, they know only that they are hungry and we might serve to alleviate that problem. Don't believe me? Look up "feral hog attacks in Texas", for just a quick example. I won't even touch on the assortment of other critters out there that are capable of killing humans.

Moreover, what we will see is an increase in criminal firearm use.
Yes, even though all the legally held firearms are gone (except for police and military, of course).
Why will we see an uptick in criminal firearm use?
Easy. Because right now, criminals don't have a huge market on illegally built firearms. Remove firearms from society altogether, and a market of illegal arms will spring up overnight. I guarantee it.
Why? Because people like making money, and they will do anything to make more of it.
What you will see is not the Glock semi auto pistol or Colt AR15 you worked so hard to ban and convince others of the inherent evil thereof, but of hastily made machine guns and machine pistols.

Let me be clear, there is NOTHING to building a simple submachine gun. Look no further than the British Sten submachine gun, produced during WWII. Many were built for the war effort by civilians in their closets and basements with ease. It is far easier to build a machine gun than it is a semi-auto anything, and the market will be flooded with machine guns. Think this is crazy? Look back to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was introduced, bringing about a 200 dollar tax on machine guns, when the machine guns cost well under half of what the tax was. Can you guess who the only people were that could afford to buy a machine gun? If you guessed criminal bootleggers, the same people the law was introduced to stop arming, you are correct! If anything, the law ensured that the criminal underworld was the only group who had access to suppressive firepower innate to full auto weaponry.

Banning semi auto rifles will do nothing to alleviate crimes committed with these arms, there have been literally millions produced over the years, and the technology will not ever disappear. Banning regular capacity magazines will do nothing to stop criminal misuse of these items, not when a magazine is made very simply with a bench vise or sheetmetal brake. Again, millions more have already been made and put into public hands. Bans will do nothing but increase prices slightly and wind up flooding the market with homebuilt magazines.

I've seen many arguments that the Second Amendment is outdated, and therefore null and void. This fails under even remote scrutiny. Now, more than ever, do we need and demand our right to bear arms, especially as the creeping minority have been lulled to sleep, thinking that they are safe in the arms of their elected officials. The 2nd isn't just about keeping a musket in your cabin to fend off bears, nor is it in place to make sure you have the ability to climb into a deer stand once a year and pop a cap in Bambi.
The amendment was specifically put in place to ensure that the People remained well trained and well armed, whether because they were called to action to defend the state, or to overthrow a tyrannous one and institute a new one. This has not changed, as much as many would like to gloss over this purpose or simply to laugh at it. They view the state as all-knowing, all-powerful and incapable of falling prey to insurrection. After all, we have the largest military force known to man, right? We have all the latest and greatest "anti-terror" technology, and there's no way a citizens militia could ever overtake such tremendous firepower, right?
I will have to talk to my friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and get back to you, but since many of them are still over there fighting, it might take me a while to come up with an answer.


I would remind anyone reading this that while weaponry are quoted as being the "liberties' teeth", they can cut both ways. A firearm that is most adept at performing the task of self defense is also quite likely to be attractive to criminal misuse. That is the unfortunate side effect of the arms we own, that upon occasion someone, somewhere will acquire one and do terrible things to his or her fellow man. The cries of "An honest citizen has no NEED of such weaponry" are then heard loud and clear, near and far. What those who would deny us these arms do not realize is that these are the EXACT arms we need for full recognition of self defense, whether it be a semi auto rifle or it's higher capacity magazine counterpart. These are not just the tools of war and widespread death, but of equalization of power. There is no way to accurately determine the number of rounds one may have to expend in a self defense situation, nor any way to determine personal need of reloading times. One will never know the size of an attacker, nor the number of attackers. To say that "No one needs one of those rifles to hunt, there would be no meat left" is asinine. Who in the hell said I'm going to dump 30 rounds of 5.56mm ammo into a deer or any target? I have full and complete control of the trigger, and since ammo isn't cheap, I'd prefer NOT to do a mag dump on Bambi. What I DO want to ensure is that in the case of a number of predatory wild animals, or larger, more harmful game, whether two legged or four legged, that I have sufficient ammunitions on hand and at the ready to stop a threat.
Do not lecture me about how a revolver will "do the job". If a revolver was all I had, then I would use it to the extent that I could. Why then, if better technology exists, should I ignore something that works better and is easier to control? Why is it that I should have to settle for the bare minimum when it comes to armed self defense? I'm sure a situation exists wherein a sharp stick is a sufficient weapon to stop an attacker, but will this same sharp stick cover every situation? No, absolutely not. Will my semi auto sporting rifle cover just about any situation? Much more so than a sharp stick, a Tae Kwon Do lesson, a pocket knife, or even a cell phone will.

Do not be fooled into thinking you can simply disarm the people of this nation. Right now, many still mourn the losses of this year in the mass shootings we have had, but before long, we will again raise our heads high and cease to act solely on emotion. I expect a return of the people to a standing of common sense, where the lies about modern sporting rifles are easily and readily dispelled, and those who would steal liberties' teeth would quickly be cut on the double-edged blade of same.
Realize that your calls for theft of the People's rights have awakened a sleeping giant, and you have literally come to a fight hopelessly unarmed, carrying only a chip on your shoulder and propaganda in your hand.

Never surrender, never give up. We will outlast those who would disarm us, as they have nothing more than a piece of paper holding worthless legislation to try and protect their way, while we provide our own protection and longevity.

MOLON LABE.

Back to your normally scheduled redneck gun building.......