Log in

No account? Create an account

Thu, Jan. 24th, 2013, 07:27 pm
My hunting rifle and Katyn forest.

Originally published at VolkStudio Blog. You can comment here or there.

I own many rifles, but I only hunt with one of them. Feinstein’s latest effort to disarm Americans would ban it. It would ban that entire shape of rifle (bullpup) as well as that entire category (semi-auto with a box magazine). So the whole claim that hunters are unaffected is a lie.

I own many rifles, but only one of them is my choice for home defense. It’s the same rifle — there’s no time to re-learn different controls under stress. I hunt once a year, but self-defense is a full-time need. So the same proposed legislation would also rob me of that. Classy.

How did we ever get the “compassionate liberals who love nature” to take the view that hunting is OK in general? Hunting for food has been largely regulated out of existence, but they claim to approve of hunting for fun. “Your hunting rifle is safe,” they said. How did a recreational activity become more important than saving human lives from predators?

We all know that hunting rifles are offensive devices. With them, we can bring down an animal from a distance. All the high-profile assassinations of the 20th century done with long guns were effected with the common hunting rifles or nearly identical military surplus bolt actions. So we know the congressional creatures who want us disarmed are more worried about weaker, shorter range but faster handling defensive arms. In other words, they don’t expect Americans to take the initiative and go after them personally with a bolt 30-06 or a lever 30-30, but they do want us stripped with the ARs and AKs suitable for fending off freelance or government criminals. They view us as prey and themselves as meta-predators.

Politicians are by and large meta-predators. Many of them do not rape, rob or murder with their own hands but send others to do it for them. Gun control is the main way to make their minions more effective at subjugating the population. They aren’t worried about the population taking the fight to them. They haven’t been very wrong so far.

If they do succeed in disarming America, we would have a short window of opportunity to even the score. That would require bypassing all the enforcement organizations and going directly after those who give the orders. Maybe they ought to re-think that whole concept of not being afraid of the hunting rifles.

And maybe we should re-think the theory that we can give up our defensive arms and survive. The threat to the enemy isn’t the guns themselves but the trained and motivated people who know how to use them. Enough of the weapons will remain in circulation for retaliatory action, and their motivation would have been supplied by the actions of the disarmers of people themselves. At that point, it would matter little if an AR or a single shot break action or a box with ANFO gets used — people who wish to make a point usually find a way. So the threat to them aren’t the horns or hooves of the uppity citizens but their determination to remain independent. That puts us at much higher risk right after the confiscation of the firearms and makes fighting a safer choice than complying. Katyn isn’t just a village West of Smolensk.

PS: Australia provides us with another glimpse of the endgame: an effort to ban even single shot rifles. (I did verify the data on Infowars site and found it correct.)