Opinion
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One of the more recent arguments being used against modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles (and shotguns, for that matter) is that they have no place in “civil society.” It’s a far cry from their earlier justifications for the arbitrary bans on these semi-automatic firearms.
One big reason is that they have found that facts about crime didn’t help their flimsy case for these bans. One look at Justice Department crime stats shows why. Over the last five years, rifles and shotguns of all types were used for fewer murders than hands, fists, and feet (what the Justice Department calls “personal weapons”). In short, if you’re looking for murder weapons, rifles and shotguns aren’t them.
If we had a media that held people accountable for misleading the American public, it would be hard for Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders to get away with calling for America to follow New Zealand’s lead on banning firearms. Sadly, we do not. Instead, we are faced with a new angle that is being used to attack our rights.
Instead, they are now taking this claim that, in the words of Kamala Harris, “there is no reason in a civil society” for people to have modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms.
Of course, Harris also tossed out the canard that all modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms are good for is “killing babies and police officers.” She even wanted to use autopsy photos of the Sandy Hook victims to shame elected officials into voting for a ban.
Now her play is pretty clear. She is peddling a whopper so big that Burger King would need a bigger drive-thru window to be able to hand it to anyone who bought it, and she is manipulating people into a massive emotional reaction to do it. On top of that, she is also seeking to make the case that those who do not agree with her are the future perpetrators of mass shootings in schools, movie theaters, or other venues.
As was the case with Chris Murphy’s tweet, it’s a slander. The conduct of the millions of Americans who own AR-15 and use them for hunting, competitions, informal target shooting, or even self-defense, when combined with the statistics from the Justice Department, prove this case beyond any reasonable doubt.
We just have two problems:
- The first is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Kamala Harris has made that clear. So have Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders. Why? Because they are making unreasonable demands. There is no rational reason to punish millions of people who never shot up a school, movie theater, country music concert, or any other venue. None.
- The second problem is that Harris is using an effective one-two combination of emotional manipulation and human shields. Since the facts about modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms are not on her side, she is using the blood and victims of Sandy Hook (and other shootings) as pawns.
In essence, we’re to ignore what the facts are, and instead let them lead us down an emotion-driven path that deprives us of our rights.
This is a challenging situation to handle, but we have to take it head-on. We’ll discuss more on how to effectively defend our rights by countering Harris’s one-two combination in the next update.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics, and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
I prefer dangerous Freedom over a peaceful slavery
– Jefferson
Harris should tell that to all her homies in the heavily Democratic Chicago. Now there is a civil society.
I mean, if we want to talk “civil society”, and what should, or shouldn’t be acceptable let’s start at the fact that we have been trying to outlaw murder since the times of Moses. I’d say that “civil society” would condemn judgement on fellow human beings based on diversity as well. Yet somehow, Dems are always talking about the “white devil”, while spewing “politically correct” prejudice. No, their argument against the AR-15, an inanimate object, is nothing more than a call for civil obedience. Big bro wants to tell you, the peasant, what’s best for you. And failure to comply… Read more »
Bob I know what you are talking about not really wanting an AR 15, I myself have no interest in owning one, I had 2 bad experiences when I got to Nam, first 2 firefights that useless M-16 didn’t have the forward assist on them, had there not been a rock near by both times to slam the barrel on to get the bolt to close I could have been history, so to this day I have no and I mean no interest in owning one! I don’t think anyone who can own one should be restricted from owning one… Read more »
There is no reason for someone to own and use a Mercedes. You can get to work or the store or doctor in a Ford or Chevy, but if you can afford it and you don’t abuse it by running over someone, then there’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to own a Mercedes. The same goes for any gun.
Heals up Harris has already heard what her dad had to say, basically he is disappointed in her talk and actions. He is not even from this country and her mother was not born here either. What gives her the right to run us down and try to trample our rights. Just like booger hook Booker and the rest of the slum that have the delusion that this can become their paradise and the rest of us as their servants. I can see myself rejecting that. Schiff for brains needs to go back to commiefornia and continue playing video games… Read more »
“There is no reason in a civil society” to have lying scum like Harris and Murphy in government.
The “civil society” of the late 18th century should not have “needed” Brown Bess, rifled muskets, horse pistols, paper cartridges, (facilitates much faster reloading, you know….), nor their community armouries just outside of town, three of which General Thomas Gage raided or attempted to raid as prelude to his waterloo raid on Lexington and Concord. And yet, had not those well prepared members of that “civil society” had those arm and stores laid by, ready to hand, AND the skill and discipline to make good use of them, we’d be having high tea at four, obserging Victoria Day with fireworks,… Read more »
If we ever have a perfectly civil society, in which nobody ever tries to coerce anybody else against their will, nobody ever covets or steals, everyone is perfectly happy to end an argument with a verbal disagreement, worldwide — you could maybe raise this issue. Only to learn that nature, either as a source of food or an enemy of survival, will still require humans to have effective guns to exist and be competently operated. Sorry Kamala, that argument fails, try another!
Banning semi-automatic AR15 type rifles and standard full capacity sporting arms is NOT a “reasonable compromise – IT IS THE END GAME!
It is the difference between a citizenry effectively armed to ENABLE THE CAPABILITY of DEFENDING IT’S FREEDOMS – And a citizenry restricted by law to low capacity sporting arms that NO LONGER POSSESSES THE CAPABILITY TO DEFEND IT’S FREEDOMS!
The Second Amendment is a right to “THE CAPABILITY”