Gun Owners and the Politics of Distrust

If you were to believe a lot of our so-called “representatives,” you would get the impression that all gunowners are criminals, and the only reason that they are criminals is because they own a firearm.

A close look at what they say reveals a lot about their mentality. How many times have you heard some poltician say that “guns cause crime?” Once they get the public to start thinking this way, it is a simple matter for them to go on various crusades. The only reasons that they could possibly have for these crusades is that they are a) getting Big Bucks from some lobby group; b) they have such a distorted world-view that they believe their own tripe, or; c) they simply want to impose their will on those they represent.

(Of course, the strict Constitutionalist would point out that this is yet another reason that the Federal government has no right or authority to create legislation which directly affects states’ citizens. Neither Charles Schumer nor Diane Feinstein “represent me, since I don’t live in their home states, yet they introduce laws which will affect me. What would this be called? “Legislation without representation?” Or simply “tyranny?”)

They could be totally ignorant of the words of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Or, perhaps, they have read the Constitution yet have decided that they do not agree with it and have decided to do everything in their power to subvert its meaning, and in the process, turn our political system 180 degrees from what it was meant to be.

Or, perhaps they get large checks from certain lobby groups who want to impose THEIR ideals on our society.  It would seem that if a politician attempts to violate his oath to uphold The Constitution, and seeks to deprive The People of their rights, then that Politician should be found guilty of treason. If they only do it for the money, maybe they are also guilty of prostitution.  It used to be that someone who intended to subvert our Constitution was called “an enemy.”  Now, they are called a “member of government.”

I doubt that gun ownership as a percentage of the population has increased since the 40’s and 50′, yet crime rates have risen dramatically. If “guns cause crime,” as the politicians want us to believe, then this would seem to be an anomaly that deserves study. Could it be that, rather than CAUSE crime, armed citizens tend to REDUCE crimes committed against them? Hmmm. If you pass a law that restricts gun ownership, the only people who will obey the law are the law abiding citizens. Criminals will simply break the law. That kind of is the definition of “a criminal.”

Maybe certain politicians are so mentally unstable that they believe that if they owned a gun themselves, they would go on a shooting rampage. If this is the case, are these the people we really want running our country? Have the inmates finally succeeded in taking over the asylum, and now want us all to obey their delusions? That would at least explain their paranoid actions. They just assume that every one else in the country is as mentally unstable as they are, and have so little self-control (or moral backbone), that as soon as they simply TOUCH a firearm, they become a homicidal maniac.

Maybe certain lobbying groups donate (i.e.-bribe) certain politicians to pass certain laws for whatever reason. (see – “prostitution” and “treason” above) Not only should these professional influence peddlers be investigated, but so should those who hire them as their ‘bag men’ to see what their true intentions might be. Why should someone be allowed to get legislation passed that favors their ideology or religion just because they are willing to pay bribe money to people WE elect to represent US?

One thing is obvious: they are totally ignorant of that which they seek to regulate – firearms. A recent bill which has been introduced as a result of some serious bribe money flowing down to the states seeks to impose a tax on each round of “handgun and assault rifle ammunition.” It’s difficult to know exactly what ammo this might include, since the people who draft these bill change the definition of words in a most Orwellian way at an alarming rate. The actual definition of assault rifle ammo is that it is an intermediate size round, midway between handgun ammo and full-power rifle ammo. It goes on to list the firearms for which ammo would be taxed. It includes the 5.56mm AR-15 and 5.56mm CAR-15, but specifically EXCLUDES the 5.56mm Colt HBAR Sporter. For those of you who don’t know this model, it is an AR-15 with a thicker barrel and no bayonet mount. It uses the EXACT same ammo that the other AR-15s use, but apparently is considered to be somehow less “crime-inducing.” It was the firearm that Colt introduced to pass scrutiny under the Clinton and Bush I Administration’s various bans. One other point: an “assault rifle” is defined as a select-fire firearm that uses an intermediate cartridge. None of the firearms listed are even “assault rifles,” since not a one of them is select-fire.

The bill also includes the Barrett Light .50. If you’ve never seen on of these, they are a spectacular firearm. They are about 6 feet long, weigh 26 pounds, and use ammunition that costs, the last time I checked, about $2 per round. The rifle itself is very expensive. They are most assuredly do NOT use a “handgun round,” nor could it ever qualify under ANY definition of “assault rifle,” but it is still specified by name in the new bills.

Seeing this illogic in government, many gun owners are left to wonder not only what the future holds, but why. What the people in government fail to (or refuse to) understand is that the vast majority of guns in this country are owned by law-abiding people, most of whom don’t even consider themselves part of a “gun culture.” They are firemen, lawyers, doctors, students, carpenters, housewives, farmers, and on and on. In other words, people from all walks of life own guns. A small percentage of them ever go to the shooting range or ever visit a gun show. They own guns for just as many reasons as there are people. And that doesn’t include the people who like competition shooting in any of its many forms, hunting, target practice, varmint control. It also doesn’t include the huge number of households in the country who have a firearm because they understand that, regardless of what the anti-gun crowd says, while the police can get to a lot of places in only a matter of a few minutes, they could be the victim of a violent crime in a matter of seconds. To disarm the law-abiding citizens results only in making them easy prey for criminals, who would be granted carte blanc, since they would know that none of their potential victims would be able to defend themselves.

This does not include the very vocal minority who understand the importance of firearms in a free society, the resulting relationship between citizens and the government, and the negative effect on “liberty” that tends to result when governments ban firearms ownership, or regulate it through taxes where the only ones able to afford to own a gun and/or buy ammo are those who are part of the wealthy elite (and who are, by the way, more likely to have donated to (bribed) the politician. Those in the incoming government constantly preach about “equalizing” the classes, but their actions would have the direct result of not only widening the gap, where only the wealthy would be allowed to retain “liberty ,” but would also result in the situation where only the wealthy class would be able to defend themselves and loved ones. Those who could not afford to pay the prohibitive taxes, licensing fees, etc. etc, would be totally at the mercy of not only the criminals, but the wealthy and the government as well.

One of the Founding Fathers said “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.” There is a lot of truth in that, as there is in just about everything the Founding Fathers said. Gun control has worked well in the places where it has been implemented in the past: 1930’s Germany and Soviet Union passed strict gun control, and those two governments alone managed to murder 25 million “subjects.” More recently, in this country, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta instituted gun restrictions, and the crime rate shot up, while in nearby cities, which certainly must have great similarities in culture, crime rates stayed the same, or even dropped. A criminal doesn’t want to run into an armed person who may refuse to become a victim. They would much rather have their pick from masses of unarmed victims who are much easier targets for whatever the criminal has in mind.


3 Responses to Gun Owners and the Politics of Distrust

  1. I love your blog post! It really hit it on the head! Would you mind terribly if I place a link back from my site at

  2. Timaaaa says:

    I really very liked this post. Can I copy?
    Thanks in advance.

    Sincerely, Timur.

  3. dcp511 says:

    hanks for sharing your blog with all of us, very imformative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: