Wednesday, February 13, 2013




 Banning Assault Weapons

I know many of friends and even close relatives are against gun ownership and consider it foolish if not outright crazy, stupid or worse.

Any investigation of facts must not be based on emotions or preconceived notions, it must not only be based in facts but the ability to look for clues and putting them together, connecting the dots, mind you.
As it was revealed on CNN no less, that even with the recent spate of shootings using assault weapons, of the more than 11,000 shooting deaths a year only 4% are caused by this type of weapon!
Then why all the hoopla and the assault on the assault weapons, is there something else? Are we missing something? Are we not being told something? Is there something else?

If the assault weapons are used in no more than 4% of murders per year then why there is such a big push for their ban? Why they are more important to ban than say cheap 9mm handguns that used in so many more killings, killings in the hood, in drug wars, and even more importantly "black on black" killings.
Is there a reason? Look for the reason and you solve the puzzle.

Actually, at a closer look you will find that the use of these weapons in murders is very new, in very few but extremely well publicized cases. 

An assault weapon was used, it is said, in Aurora and at Newtown, the weapon used in Fort Hood was military issue. The weapon used in Wisconsin was a hand gun. So was the one used in Arizona.
The second part of each of these stories is the mental health. 

Something is gone wrong with this country, we are not just a lazy people, generally, we have become mentally lazy too, why not just get your facts and opinions from some hack, from a talk or a news show, why waste time gathering facts and thinking for yourself. Why think! 

The media are setting the agendas and determining our priorities, what to eat, how much to eat, what to drive, what gas to use and so on. So it is no wonder that so many informed and the educated suddenly don't see a problem with assault weapons ban.

Even Obama himself will agree that 99.999 % of these weapons have never been used in a crime, that most owners are law abiding and stable citizens with no metal illness and no intention of going on a killing spree. Then why is this rush to collective punishment justified? Why should ALL be punished for the foolishness, no matter how horrible and sickening.

Obama will also agree that a lot more people die in house fires every year than by assault weapons, then why not just ban houses, we could make people live in camps, tents or some shelters, may be not, but surely more home owners set fire to their own homes than the assault weapon owners use their weapons to kill people, just the same, ban home ownership, no more a problem. What I am saying is this, that the idea is stupid.

Another problem here is where do we stop, assault weapons are actually no more than simple rifles designed to fire semi-automatically, that is IT, until you realize that most all hand guns are also semi automatic weapons, (also used in more shootings than the "assault rifles"), so if you let them pass a assault rifle ban you could well be looking at a ban on the semi-automatic pistols, no joke, that is the next step. Even if you are just a run of the mill criminal, you know that it hard to hide an assault rifle and carry one in to a say bank or a store for robbery, it hard to hide and transport to kill some one with, it is hard to aim and harder to shoot accurately for a single murder, even a hand gun, a small one, is easily capable of killing three or four people at close range, most of the people that oppose the long guns have never used one, never handled one and don't freaking know what the hell they are talking about, they are just on a band wagon of the stupid and clueless.

So why are we so gung ho about  the assault rifle ban, because we are told that they are dangerous, by whom? by the government and their patsies in the media. 

It is no doubt that our government is very scared of the people, the department of Homeland Security has named most all categories of American public   as potential terrorists, does not matter, left wing right wing, white, black, peaceful or anarchist, we are all potential terrorists, could this be a first step in reducing the threat to the status quo? I hope not, but sure sounds like it. Our police are armed to the teeth, police in SWAT gear, and tactical vehicles, with robots and machine guns, tear gas and grenade launchers, helicopter and drone surveillance, the police today are no less than an army in civilian uniform, yet the government knows that if shit hits the fan, people with assault weapons could still put up a resistance to the police, reducing the number of assault weapons reduces this threat. 

Back in November of 2010 I write a series,  A life in Dichotomies, there are three articles if you want to look, we have choices in life and most of the time choices conflict, such is the situation here also. We have police that are armed to the teeth, with assault weapons as the government wants to call them, then we have "police" trained in techniques we have taught our combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to break in to peoples houses and shoot first ask questions later, without consequence, now we also declare that 20 to 30 percent of the troops coming back suffer from PTSD, to the point that they are considered a threat to themselves and others, and guess who is hiring these returning troops, our police departments. As a result of the training the police are being given and then recruiting the returning troops for the police duties, we are endangering the civilian population. If you notice that our police are becoming heavy handed, if you notice the rise in the police brutality and abuse of civilians ( innocent civilians in far too many cases) you should know what is causing the problem. Also more people are killed with these so called assault weapons by the police then are killed by civilians. It is not uncommon that scores if not hundreds of rounds are fired at a single person or target by those that are sworn to "serve and protect".

Mallick: Why Newtown victim Noah Pozner had an open coffin

Sadly we do not so well publicize what happens to the people that are killed by the police, sometimes receiving more than twenty or even sixty bullets. A vehicle getting more than a hundered rounds pumped into it is just par for the course.

And why is the government afraid of an armed uprising? It is not really, we are brain washed in to changing our behaviors  by what we are watching on TV, or on our computers, yet few still have thoughts that are out of the main stream, not everyone likes to be felt up by the TSA body snatchers, not everyone thinks that the gays playing grab ass on the public streets is kosher, both the left ant the right are tired of being screwed by the bankers and the wall street and the government. What if the country goes bankrupt and the people have to give up property to pay the banks, and accept lower wages and lower standard of living along with higher taxes to pay off the national debt, there could be trouble. There could be trouble if the left or the right tried to impose their own kind of morality on the general public. Our privacy is under attack, our human rights and freedoms are under attack, we are not too far from the day when the government could start killing the Americans in America, even those that are not Muslims, (it could happen). Removing these assault rifles from the hands of the public could be the first step towards achieving safety for the government troops or the police.So could the problem have something to do with the high deficits and the bankers wanting to get paid?


No comments: