An open message to firearm owners "on the fence" regarding an "Assault Weapons" ban:
The call to ban so-called "assault weapons" is not about "common sense." It's not about determining whether or not a "genuine need" for owning a military-pattern semi-auto rifle exists. It's about creating a precedent for increasingly restrictive regulations which will, inevitably, reach "sportsmen."
Now, in the interest of fairness, the "hunting" referred to in the beginning of the video is not with a firearm but with hunting dogs; i.e. fox hunting. The point is not to draw comparisons between the two but to demonstrate that long-held "traditions" are not sacrosanct in the eyes of a government that has already banned firearms for anything other than "sporting" purposes. (Fox hunting was "officially" banned on February 15, 2005.)
Do you feel it unlikely that a Congress who has succeeded in banning these firearms would never attempt to pass legislation that places restrictions on hunting in the name of "animal welfare" or "protecting wildlife"? If there were a stigma placed upon hunters by the media in the form of national scorn, contempt and ridicule, would you tolerate it? Would you not expect intelligent, well-reasoned individuals to act as your advocates in the face of vicious persecution and ludicrosity?
Hang together lest we all hang seperately. You may not feel that these firearms are "necessary," and I don't expect you to, but at least acknowledge that allowing these bans to take hold will lead to more and more restrictions. They may not happen tomorrow, or a year from now, or in your generation, but if the experiences of citizens in other nations is any indication, the supporters of such legislation will never be satisfied until the lawful private ownership of firearms is rendered nonexistant.
The call to ban so-called "assault weapons" is not about "common sense." It's not about determining whether or not a "genuine need" for owning a military-pattern semi-auto rifle exists. It's about creating a precedent for increasingly restrictive regulations which will, inevitably, reach "sportsmen."
Now, in the interest of fairness, the "hunting" referred to in the beginning of the video is not with a firearm but with hunting dogs; i.e. fox hunting. The point is not to draw comparisons between the two but to demonstrate that long-held "traditions" are not sacrosanct in the eyes of a government that has already banned firearms for anything other than "sporting" purposes. (Fox hunting was "officially" banned on February 15, 2005.)
Do you feel it unlikely that a Congress who has succeeded in banning these firearms would never attempt to pass legislation that places restrictions on hunting in the name of "animal welfare" or "protecting wildlife"? If there were a stigma placed upon hunters by the media in the form of national scorn, contempt and ridicule, would you tolerate it? Would you not expect intelligent, well-reasoned individuals to act as your advocates in the face of vicious persecution and ludicrosity?
Hang together lest we all hang seperately. You may not feel that these firearms are "necessary," and I don't expect you to, but at least acknowledge that allowing these bans to take hold will lead to more and more restrictions. They may not happen tomorrow, or a year from now, or in your generation, but if the experiences of citizens in other nations is any indication, the supporters of such legislation will never be satisfied until the lawful private ownership of firearms is rendered nonexistant.
