Time to stop equivocating

I consider myself a member of the gun community. Not an activist and reviewer extraordinaire like Nutnfancy, nor a capable  2A apologetic like Colion Noir, nor an industry icon like Travis Haley, but an ordinary citizen with average firearms capability and knowledge. But as a young (21 years) member of the firearms community in the United States, I am disturbed by not only the direction that the anti-gun activists want us to go but also the direction many within our own community lean.

We are reaping what the NRA sowed so may years ago. The focus of the gun community, with a  few "hardcore" exceptions,  has been oriented towards hunting and sporting rifles. This is partly what allowed the previous AWB (assault weapons ban) to be passed. The focus was on salvaging whatever rights we could so we could continue the tradition and heritage of pastime shooting and hunting that the true purpose behind the 2A was lost.

NRA doing what it does best...compromising

It seems that many in the firearms community seemed wary, if not ashamed, to openly come out and declare the true purpose of the 2A. The NRA carefully writhes around the true issue and takes noticeable pains to distance itself from any militia or ultra-patriotic content. It is also known for its compromises on certain issues like a UBC (universal background check) and even the '94 AWB. It justifies this by claiming credit for the sunset clause which caused the ban to expire in 2004 (and heaven be praised for that, thumbhole stocks are just horrible).

Is the NRA truly on our side? Maybe...they are certainly a powerful tool to be allied with. They have many contacts in DC and more funds than any other firearms lobby. They have numerous industry connections and have control over the 40 page glossy advertisement called The Rifleman.

But they and similar-minded individuals (not to solely pick on the NRA) are still weak in ideology. The 2A was there for a reason, and it sure as hell wasn't for plinking, hunting, competition, sport shooting, or even for personal self-defense. These things are all just practice for the main event, which is the security of the State. For this reason the right of the people to bear and keep arms is protected. It is NOT for hunting or any other purpose than to maintain a passive-until-needed army of citizen soldiers who are self-armed and have no official ties to the State.

In the very history of this country, it has occurred that men rose up against foreign armies and domestic threats with their own arms, equivalent to the military of the time. And those who could not bring to battle equivalent arms were promptly crushed.

In the American Revolution, men brought their own fine weapons that they were skilled with and defeated the finest army of the time. In Athens, Georgia in 1947, veterans of WW2 used their skills and arms to defeat a corrupt county government that had committed election fraud for years. Battle Of Athens

It is rare that these actions have been taken, but the option MUST remain open for all. The ability to overthrow tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive, and un-Constitutional governments is perhaps the final, and most drastic, check and balance in the American system.

It is weak and dishonest for those in the gun-community to deny or equivocate about the true purpose of the 2A. If it is out of fear that we do not speak of overthrowing a corrupt and oppressive government  than we have already been defeated. If you live in fear of the NSA, a SWAT team on a no-knock warrant, the FBI, or any other paramilitary organization coming for you, then you've never needed the 2A more than now.

The 2A exists to prevent the State from forcing upon the people a monopoly of force. The 2A exists to protect the right of the people to maintain a capability to do away with a corrupt or tyrannical government. Plain and simple, no excuses, no equivocation.

This lady doesn't equivocate, why should you?

Suzanna Grupp testifies (skip to 5:00 for the best part)

Weapons designed for the military and perfectly Constitutional to own. Don't deny it.

While I'm on the subject of equivocation, the denial and squirming among the gun community about the origin and function of the AK-47, and, specifically, the AR-15 are getting old. Let's face it the AR-15 is 90% the military M4/M16. The design is nearly identical, most civilian ARs can be (very illegally of course) made fully automatic in an under an hour. The trend in the gun community to go "milspec" makes these civilian owned firearms even closer to M4s... Most any AK you buy is identical to those used in Syria, Afghanistan, Mali, or any other -stan in the world except that it isn't fully automatic (and all the better, even 7.62x39 is hard to find these days). So let's stop with the verbal surrender.

Every time I hear someone calling a AR-15 a Modern Day Musket, Sporting Rifle, or any other ridiculous synonym, I cringe. Hiding behind these little euphemisms is just a self-enforced form of political correctness that some in the community use because they're afraid to offend or shock people.

A real Modern Day Musket

Does this mean that guns really are inherently evil or bad since some of us seek to hide behind euphemisms or equivocation? No, it means that some of us are afraid to speak the whole truth.Afraid of the consequences and responsibilities of owning a highly effective weapon.

So come out and admit why you own the firearms. Its not just for hunting, plinking, or competition, it is for self-defense and for the defense of liberty. And next, don't hide the purpose or details of these firearms...we are perfectly justified in owning near military-grade weapons. The more the general public is shown responsible gun owners who don't writhe under pressure and tell it like it is the better.