In going after rifles, prohibitionists are more concerned about politically significant firepower than they are about crime. The authoritarians aren’t comfortable with constituents who don’t need state services, however unwanted those “services” may be. This is why shotguns with short effective range remained legal in many countries where rifles were banned from private ownership.
February 26, 2018
Rifles as canaries in the coal mine.
[I interpret “politically significant firepower” as meaning significant firepower to affect the balance of power between the state and the people.
This is a profound point. By attacking the ownership of rifles, involved in a such a small portion of the violent crime, anti-gun people are admitting it is not crime they are interested in reducing. It must be something else which motivates this action. The obvious answer is they want people less able to resist a powerful government.
Let that sink in for a while and then take the appropriate action.—Joe]
“I interpret “politically significant firepower” as meaning significant firepower to affect the balance of power between the state and the people.”
Mao said “…Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party….”
From the rest of this portion of his speech –“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”. –
and from military fundamentals, the rifle, IMO, is the primary gun Mao is referring to.
My suspicion is that you and Oleg are giving them too much credit. I don’t think their motivations (aside from perhaps a handful of puppet masters) are that logical. We know empirically that the left is motivated by raw emotion. It’s far more likely that the motivation for banning semi auto rifles is their frightening aesthetic. This would explain why the stock mini 14 and m1 carbine fail to make the banned list on many iterations of the prohibition legislation. It would also explain why these weapons are often identified and banned by their cosmetic features such as pistol grips and “barrel shrouds”.
Let’s be careful to keep the tactics separate from the motivation. That “handful of puppet-masters” sets the tone for the entire, global authoritarian movement.
Yes, there are millions, perhaps billions, of the blind, the programmed, the duped, the Useful Idiots, and only a few dedicated, studied, knowing perpetrators.
Whatever the ratio of perpetrators to duped, it’s irrelevant; the motives determine the tactics, the tactics reveal the motives, the motives reveal the mindset, and the mindset reveals the allegiance.
We can sort out the perps from the dupes once we reach the sentencing phases of their trials. Until then it makes no difference; the mindless drones may sting more effectively than their queen anyway, and either way you’re dealing with the queen.
Ultimately, it’s all about overcoming the Chief Perpetrator, who already rules the world, without getting covered in shit for being so close to it. No amount of hardware can do you any real good in that regard, so here we are looking at another one of the false dichotomies;
Are guns for good, or for evil? Answer; “No”. Own guns, by all means, but understand that bullets can break things and they can kill flesh, but they can’t kill evil.
Sure, but consider Hanlon’s Razor:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Nelson’s corollary: When malice has been repeatedly demonstrated as much more likely motivation than stupidity, do not dismiss it because the logical corollaries and implications are uncomfortable.
And Wilson’s Rule. “Fellow travelers may have different motivations, but they are still cooperating about where they’re going.”
Hah! Here we are;
Morphious explaining to Neo how the Matrix works. Take heed.
Yup. It’s why they limited caliber to fifty or less, and then went apeshit over the 50 BMG some years back. They went apeshit over the 50, not because anyone had used it, or would use it, in crime, but because of its range and its effectiveness against material assets. They went apeshit because of its potential effectiveness against the assets of state over-reach.
Those of the authoritarian, or Herodian, mindset want guns for use in perpetrating crime, not in preventing it.
The very notion of guns for the intervention and prevention of crime turns them apoplectic. It blows their cover of authority. It is heresy against their presumed god-emperor.
The American Principles of Liberty, and likewise what the Bible refers to as The Perfect Law of Liberty, constitute heresy to those of the mind of Herod, and of the Pharisees, and of present-day Rome, which is the gangster mind, which is the mind of Cain.
So if you love liberty and you like the idea of sending an authoritarian shitbag into a tizzy of his own making, be sure to own a 50 BMG, and learn how to use it effectively. They’ll want you dead for it of course, but if they didn’t want you dead you’d certainly be on the wrong side.
We can’t fight them, not really, not in the physical sense, but we can certainly expose them, and force them to come out into the open and declare themselves. When their cover is blown, all they have left is violence and terror. Martin Luther understood this five hundred years ago, and it’s just as true today.
I thought they want to ban the .50 BMG because it shoots incendiary heat sinking ketchup bottles that cook deer as you shoot them…?
Back in the day, 1990s when Bill and Hillary were proselytizing gun control I asked those I knew who supported them one simple question. What are they planning to do to us that is so awful, so terrible and horrendous, that they are afraid we will fight back? Today I know what. Molon Labe.