Radical Left’s Four-Prong Strategy For Destroying 2A: Step-One More Gun Bans

Opinion
First Prong: Institute New Bans On Semiautomatic Weapons, Ammunition Magazines, And Other Gun Components And Gun Accessories

Semi Auto Firearms Gun Ban NRA ILA Stock Image
Radical Left’s Four-Prong Strategy For Destroying 2A: Step-One More Gun Bans, IMG NRA ILA

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- It isn't bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and all component parts of those weapons, and all accessories for those weapons.

The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, ‘assault weapon' and ‘high capacity magazine' isn’t by accident, and this point must be pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the phrases are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish.

The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the New Progressive Left antigun crowd [read-Socialist Democrats] is beginning to use the expressions, ‘fully-automatic weapon’ and ‘semi-automatic weapon’ interchangeably. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then the exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots.

Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry.

To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal. The New Progressive Left must accomplish the destruction of the Second Amendment if they are to be able to subjugate the citizenry, and, in so doing, they will begin to bring to fruition, their supreme goal: a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship that will emerge from the tattered remains of our Republic. But, the New Progressive Left politicians must first curry public support for their unconstitutional, unconscionable antigun policy objectives and measures. In that effort, we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to the preservation of the Second Amendment.

These fictions include loaded, emotionally charged terminology: ‘assault weapon,’ ‘military-style assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ and “high capacity magazine.”

The public usually doesn’t even bother to ask for an explication of these expressions, and in the few instances when it does ask for an explanation, we see the antigun spokesperson often saying that the targeted weapons look like and operate like military weapons. This, of course, is a nonsensical response, first, because the military isn't interested in the appearance of firearms merely for the sake of appearance, anyway, and, second, because the antigun pronouncement that civilian “assault weapons” operate like military “assault rifles” is simply wrong.

In weapons’ design and fabrication for military application, form follows function, not the other way around, and the critical importance of function of a weapon is that of operation and handling. The military, ‘assault rifle,’ by definition, is a selective fire, intermediate caliber weapon. The civilian version of an assault rifle, if the notion of a ‘civilian version’ of a military assault rifle is even meaningful, is hardly an adequate descriptor for weapons found in the non-military, i.e., civilian marketplace since such weapons are not capable of full-auto or short burst auto fire.

Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know?

They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Second, even assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim was true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. Those are all legitimate uses. Further, suppose, an American simply wants a fully functional so-called ‘assault weapon’ as a collectible. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen be able to own and possess that weapon? It is no answer to say no American needs one. But, that is the answer often given. In fact, why should the law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen even have to proffer a reason for owning and possessing a so-called ‘assault weapon' at all? The antigun New Progressive Left activist simply presumes that a person must explain why he wishes to own and possess this or that firearm. No, he doesn't. Where in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, or in any other provision of the Constitution, does it say that an American citizen must demonstrate a purpose for or need for owning and possessing a particular firearm? Nowhere. The implicit understanding of the text of the Second Amendment is that a weapon is a personnel weapon, that, in fact, is expected to be used for, inter alia, military use. So, contrary, to the antigun New Progressive Left’s assertion that civilians are not permitted to own and possess a ‘weapon of war,'—a shibboleth that is accepted as true and obviously so—the import of the Second Amendment points to the falsity of the New Progressive Left’s claim.

The salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government's own standing army; to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation.

The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God!

To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, ‘muscular' desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt.

Neon Gun and Magazine Ban Circle
No one needs normal “high capacity” magazines.

As for ammunition magazines, the retort to the perfunctory exclamation of the antigun New Progressive Left that no one needs high capacity magazines is threefold.

  • First, we begin with the obvious: ammunition magazines are a necessary component of semiautomatic weapons. And, as for what constitutes an acceptable number of cartridges, and what might, to the antigun radical Left activist constitute an unacceptable, “high capacity,” ammunition magazine, no one can reasonably define what ‘high capacity’ means; any attempt to do so reduces to arbitrary absurdity.
  • Second, an ammunition magazine holding several rounds, for home defense, makes simple common-sense, whether an innocent individual faces one assailant or several assailants. The imposition of limitations on the number of cartridges a given ammunition magazine is, for a particular firearm, under law, permitted to hold, are ultimately arbitrary senseless and pointless.
  • Third, going back to the initial antigun pronouncement that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible civilian citizen simply doesn’t need a ‘high capacity’ ammunition magazines, whatever that expression, ‘high capacity’ means, simply begs the question whether one does need such high capacity ammunition magazines to adequately thwart a potential threat.

“Need,” in and of itself, namely “need per se,” is defined by purpose. But, the antigun proponent’s pronouncement that a person doesn’t need a ‘high capacity magazine’ is logically faulty on other grounds. There are many things a person possesses that a person may not need. There are wants as well. Suppose I just happen to want a so-called ‘assault weapon’ and so-called high capacity ammunition magazine, as a component of that weapon.

Why shouldn’t I, as an average, law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, be able to have one? It is no answer to say society will be safer if I don’t have certain weapons and certain ammunition magazines.

Extrapolating from misuse of any firearm by a dangerous lunatic and psychopathic criminal to me and tens of millions of other Americans who desire to exercise their natural right to own and possess these firearms and ammunition magazines and who are not lunatics or psychopathic criminals is to constrain, unconstitutionally and unconscionably, tens of millions of Americans due to the actions of a few undesirables.

No greater need exists, today, than for a citizen army to be well-armed against the real threat of a Marxist-Socialist takeover of the Government and the enslavement of the American citizenry that such a takeover would entail. It is just this dire need that exists and more so now than ever before in light of those who argue that no need exists for so-called ‘weapons of war.’ The American citizenry must be well-armed to thwart a possible takeover of our Government by this antigun New Progressive Left that is intent on destroying our Nation's Constitution; that is intent on erasing our Nation's history; and that is intent on endowing the Federal Government with the means necessary to do so: to subjugate the American citizenry, and thoroughly control all thought and action.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

30
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
9 Comment threads
21 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
Sapper04StWayneCourageousLionFinnkygearjammer Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Just in case anyone hasn’t noticed…the 2nd amendment isn’t what guarantees our rights. What guarantees them is being willing to fight to the last dying breath for them. The second amendment is as follows these days… The NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the a$$ listed rights) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT: You are buying the firearms for yourself. EXCEPT: we… Read more »

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Hey CourageousLion —

There you go being soft again. You have got to tell the folks like it is!

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

I need a high capacity magazine so that I have a good fighting chance against any and all aggression against me that is for unlawful measures so that I can kill or wound as many of my aggressors as possible before or if they get me. And I don’t care if the aggressors are FOREIGN or DOMESTIC.

StWayne
Member
StWayne

If we are to stand a chance against these political hacks on the left, then those we elect to office need to grow a spine and start engaging them with the same force that’s being applied to them. It won’t be easy because it’s not in their natures, but they will have to learn that there’s a time to turn the other cheek, and that that time is not now. Political righties have always been, well, too “Mitt Romney” like in their behavior. You cannot fight fire with “squared up excuses.” Every time I see Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham… Read more »

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

I am a LEGAL LAW ABIDING American Citizen. I AM NOT THE PROBLEM!! I have the RIGHT to OWN ANY weapon of MY CHOICE! The FOUNDING FATHERS stated that WE the PEOPLE (the Militia) have the RIGHT to OWN weapons which the Military possesses and uses!! LEGAL LAW ABIDING owners of weapons ARE responsible for the functioning and care of these INANIMATE objects. LEGAL LAW ABIDING owners are NOT the problem. THUGS, on the other hand, do not care if the weapon’s condition. THUGS only care that the weapon shoots the VICTIM when they STEAL. The PROBLEM – – IS… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

True, the 2A makes no reference to “legally law-abiding”. If it did, all the revolutionaries that fought against the crown, and those that supported them, would have been disbarred the RKBA. Jefferson stated self-defense is a natural right. He didn’t state that it is a natural right of only those that are law-abiding. If that were, in places that do not have a right to self-defense or where self-defense is made onerous, costly, and legally perilous, the law-abiding would be disbarred their natural right. I am quite sure Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the rest of the Founding Fathers would heartily… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

21 thumbs up for you!

gearjammer
Member
gearjammer

I like the old “guns should be registered like cars” argument, this is were their simpleton and unformed mindset shows, cars are bought all the time without a drivers license, and kept on private property=never registered, a much bigger problem is repeat drunk drivers with permanently revoked licenses driving drunk in these cars(no license no insurance&most likely to hit and run), but not a peep about all the people killed and maned by these criminals. Watch live PD , just about every car pulled over is driven by criminally revoked drivers.

Quatermain
Member
Quatermain

We need a comprehensive federal law regulating automobiles and their ownership, since they account for far more fatalities than firearms. We need to regulate all auto’s so that they can not exceed the speed limit. That is unsafe. We must develop common sense legislation limiting horsepower. Cars must not have gas tanks that can hold more than 10 gallons since no one needs that much gas at one time unless they are planning something illegal. Limiting gas use can positively contribute to limiting climate change, thus saving even more lives. A limit of 50 gallons per driver per month needs… Read more »

buzzsaw
Member
buzzsaw

You forgot about the mufflers. One should have to pay for a tax stamp and be subjected to an extensive background check to get one on their car.

buzzsaw

StreetSweeper
Member
StreetSweeper

Remind me again how many people doctors and medications kill every year?

Knute
Member
Knute

Many times more than all car wrecks combined. And yet doctors are so heavily regulated! The data suggests that the more heavily regulated a thing is, the more dangerous it becomes. Gee, I wonder why that might be…..

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@USA

Excellent Quote. It’s too bad that morals also mean doing what is right even when you don’t like it. I don’t think their are enough people in this nation willing to set aside their own ego’s anymore to defend people they disagree with. It’s cancel culture, on the left and the right, and each side is willing to commit the same exact sins. Bearing false witness doesn’t stop being a sin just because you are doing so against an “enemy”.

gearjammer
Member
gearjammer

Half of Americans are NOT moral, religious, or smart. they are lemmings and will trade their freedoms for free stuff and promises of future perks, time to split the country in half and give out uhaul vouchers to help out, then build a wall.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Jammer, that half lives in the cities, and luckily we have the cities surrounded.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@USA, National isolationist would be strategic level, and defense. Surrounded cities would be campaign level, and offense.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@USA, Making some this pm, if all the work goes well.

willyd
Member
willyd

I have for years had an opinion about doctors, not condemning the amount of education, internship, and hours of training, but when done with all of that, they get a licence to practice medicine? I drove a truck for 36 years, I had to be tested every 4 years, finger printed, back ground check, to be certified to drive those trucks, not a licence to practice driving them! So in respect when a doctor makes a mistake on treatment, the end result is that they bury their mistakes! This is why I avoid them at all costs!!!!

gearjammer
Member
gearjammer

As an ASE master mechanic you have to be tested or re-certified to keep your certifications, how come doctors don’t have to re certify every 4 years??? How about politicians getting tested on the constitution and bill of rights every 4 years, sounds like a good idea to me. I bet more than half would fail !!

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

You also forgot about having a background check before you can drive a rental vehicle or let your friend borrow it, and one to get it back from your friend. And you must have a license for vehicle ownership and renew it every 5 years. You must also get all your vehicles registered and insured, even if you are not going to drive it on public roads. You must also not occupy one within 1,000 feet of a school. We know how dangerous that is, the first WTC attack and Oklahoma City. Oh, that reminds me, we need to ban… Read more »

gearjammer
Member
gearjammer

Even in Comiefornia you don’t need a license to own or buy a car… what state are you in?

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@GJ – Sounds like this whole conversation passed you by.
Posters are simply requesting that because cars are so much more dangerous than firearms, guns should be subject to the same rules and regulations which are being (or have been) proposed for firearms.

I particularly like the suggestion of $200 tax stamp, comprehensive background check and 8 months to a year wait to acquire a muffler. Priceless!

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

“In 2020, even should Trump win, without a complete reversal by the Democratic Party, a renewed free and fair media, and a return to the principles upon which this nation was founded, this war will continue, and it is only a matter of time before the left again wins the Presidency, or the House, or the Senate — or all three. When that happens, this civil war will become hot because the Democrats are going to come for our guns. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry, and communist democrats can’t have that. The third most populated nation with 330,000,000… Read more »

Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao all did the same kind of thing — and the world lived haply ever after. You just can’t force a country into slavery, socialism, communism even genocide etc. while the people are armed.

Arm up, carry on.

Captain Witold Pilecki
Member

“The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the New Progressive Left antigun crowd [read-Socilist Democrats] is beginning to use the expressions, ‘fully-automatic weapon’ and ‘semi-automatic weapon’ interchangeably. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then the exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots.” I have to disagree with the “ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them,” part of the quoted statement.… Read more »

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Josh Sugarman, from the Brady Campaign, coined the term ‘assault weapons’ back in 1988. ‘Jane’s Infantry Weapons of the World’ had no such term.
He said “Because the American people are so stupid, we will talk about these assault weapons while showing fully automatic machine guns shooting. The people are so stupid they will think assault weapons are machine guns”.
Communists cannot allow their slaves to be armed.

Knute
Member
Knute

QUOTING: “the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?” – Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, still available (for now) under FOIA, from the Dept of the Navy, Office of Naval Intelligence

gearjammer
Member
gearjammer

Their next step is protection of criminals and outlawing of self defense, recently in the UK a husband and his pregnant wife were in their apartment, they were surprised by a crazed naked man who kicked in their front door ( he was on DRUGS/PCP), the crazy man rushed in with a knife and started stabbing the pregnant wife in the belly, the husband who was in the kitchen chopping vegetables had a knife in his hand, and rushed in to save his wife, he stabbed the attacker once in the back stopping the the attack, the attacker died in… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@jammer, Outrageous, but that is the UK.
PS martial not “…Marshall…”

Sapper04
Member
Sapper04

Call these “progressives” what they truly are: COMMUNISTS! Stop with this progressive crap!