For a loooong time I've been reading comments on some government entity banning something relating to firearms. Magazine capacities, barrel lengths, black guns, "assault" weapons, etc. The general course of responses seems to be: "What will I do if the govt. bans my...fill in the blanks. I know that most of us would sigh, bend over and follow the law. But...in this day of lawlessness, where minority anythings seem to do their thing with impunity, why wouldn't gun owners (the good ones) simply ignore the ban like the bad ones do? As an example, the gang bangers ignore everything...gun laws, criminal laws, drug laws, moral laws and more. So the question is why should a good citizen follow a stupid law just because the party in power wants such an outcome? The magazine ban is one such prohibition. You can have 7, 10 or 5 rounds, but not 15? In the famous words of HRC..."What difference does it make?" If one were to be limited to 5 round mags, then he or she would just carry more mags...3 X 5 = 15. One man I know is 70 years old, retired, has a permit, doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs but wants to carry his 9mm to protect himself and family. Yes, he could carry a single stack and meet most "ban" cities, but suppose he owns a double stacked semi-auto which he shoots accurately and well? Should New Jersey, New York California and others keep him from carrying? If he goes to Chicago (example) why shouldn't he be allowed to carry a 30 rounder? Another issue (here we go again!) is the use of "assault" when describing a weapon. My wife asked this question: "What's the difference between an assault weapon and a regular weapon?" Now, I just KNEW that she wasn't politically savvy, so tried to explain that the assault weapon is usually dark in color, plastic, angular, contains words or numbers such as AR, 5.56, Russian, SKS, Stoner, M16, expensive, ugly, designed for killing, automatic, machine gun-like, used only by criminals...you get the idea. Then I said that such terms are either used by the Far Left or the media, both which usually do not know anything about guns in general, but who sensational such things in order to foster their own views. Then, I went on to explain that the word "assault" is primarily a description of an action as opposed to a thing, such as he was "assaulted" by a robber who used a brick. Being an English major, she got that quickly, saying that any "thing" used to commit an assault is an assault weapon! Bingo! Her snub-nose .38 is not an assault weapon unless she uses it to attack/assault another person. Defensive use is not an assault. So...isn't it the assaulter who uses any weapon in an assault, actually the problem? If I assault you by hitting you on the head with a wooden bat or a non-loaded shotgun, which is the "assault weapon?" Does that change if I drive a spike thru the top of the bat or load the firearm? I've over-made the point here. It isn't the weapon which commits the assault, it's the person wielding and using it. So, back to the original issue up top, why should anyone of us give up our defensive weapons simply because some nitwit says we should. Most laws are good and some are bad. It's the stupid ones passed by stupid people that need flushing, ignoring, fighting, protesting, defeating, etc. Pick your verb and decide what you're going to do. Where's Chuck Heston when you need him?
Who takes care of my family and loved ones. I could not and would not take that chance.
