First they came for the machine guns, and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who needs a machine gun to hunt with?
Then they came for the “assault weapons,” and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700 and who needs an “assault weapon” to hunt with?
Then they came for the .50 caliber rifles, and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who wants to hunt with a .50 caliber rifle anyway (apart from those black powder nuts)?
Then they came for the semiautomatic handguns, and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who hunts with a pistol? (Though those big-bore hunting revolvers are kinda neat, in a sick way.)
Then they came for the rest of the semiautomatic rifles, and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700, and anyone who needs more than one shot isn’t a real hunter.
Then they came for the high-power sniper rifles; and even though my Remington 700 has a scope, and fires a round that will go through a car door, and I can hit the eye of an elk at 500 yards with it (not that I’m bragging or anything), the Second Amendment _says_ we can have guns for hunting, and I only use it one week a year for _hunting_.
But there was no one left to speak up for me, and they took it away.
John Hardin
November 14, 2008
The lament of the AHSA supporter
[I was reminded of this today when I was listening to Breda and Top of the Chain on Gun Nuts: Road show talking about going to GRPC and the discussion there about normalizing the ownership of “Evil Black Rifles”.–Joe]
Interestingly, there are those who believe, to their core, that the machineguns, the evil black rifles, semi-auto pistols, et al, and those who use them, are the problem– that without the “extremists” (those currently in the crosshairs of the antis) there would be no problem. If we would just go away, the gun control issue would go away and we could all get along.
Nothing could be more wrong. It is quite the opposite. Those in the crosshairs are, for the most part, that same ones fighting for the rights of everyone else, and winning. They’re the ones arguing on behalf of principles, and without principles we’re doomed to fight only over degrees of violation.
Same goes for politics in general. The “moderates” (and the Republican Party as presently constituted) aren’t going to be part of the solution. Though they think they are the solution to conflict, they are fueling the fire by granting an illusion of legitimacy to the enemies of liberty, by giving ground as a standard operating procedure, and by embracing “compromise” as the solution to all conflict.
In reality, you either do or you do not advocate government control over the right to keep and bear arms, you either do or do not support the second amendment, and you either do or you do not advocate a nanny state– you either do or do not embrace the principles of the Left. Any attempt to place yourself “in the middle” puts you in agreement with the basic principles (rationalizations) of those who would violate your and your neighbors’ rights.
Why can’t we all just get along? Because some people want their liberty and others want to control everyone. Are you going to stand on the side of liberty or on the side of the aggressors? Pick one, or stay the hell out of the way.