The problem that ails society is not the FACT that more civilians are choosing to arm themselves as a rational preparation for a possible event, but the fact that many people still go unarmed or that those who are wise enough to not venture out in public naked (unarmed) do so vastly under-equipped in comparison to today's criminal. Long gone are the days of the lone felon armed with a switchblade, bat, or the occasional .25 ACP. Most criminals come in packs (including up to a dozen members in my experience), and are packing REAL assault rifles, like Ex-Soviet Bloc AK-74s, FAMAS, QBZ-95 and H&K G3 (not the civvie legal toys) and such firepower simply cannot be matched by a common handgun (let alone an unarmed victim). I have even stumbled upon the occasional Pancor Jackhammer and even a sawn-off Barrett M82. We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs. It is time for the rest of society to step up to the plate. Those who arm themselves must obtain REAL firepower (at least two pistols in States without open carry) or some form of PDW (Personal Defense Weapon for all you newbies) in States with sensible gun laws. Pistols need a MINIMUM of 15 rounds to be effective and ought to have more stopping power than your average pea-shooter (I'm talking .45 acp .357 sig, 10mm auto, or .44 mag in a IMI Desert Eagle or an AutoMag) If your state doesn't trust you to open carry a SCAR, H&K G3, or an AR15, or bans effective magazines (especially the 7 round limit in the Peoples Republic of New York) then you need to be carrying a MINIMUM of two sidearms of reasonable caliber.
Only when you can outgun your attacker will you cease to be a victim. We are partners now. CARRY your responsibility.
I wish my County Sheriff were like Mr. Clarke. He speaks the truth. I have seen developments and heard rumblings and murmurs that make it very clear.
I finally thought of the simplest way to say it. The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens simply want to be left alone -- free to do with their own lives as they wish while leaving others alone. A government that harasses citizens and confiscates citizens' property without due process is destructive to that way of life. And yet that is the very prospect looming in New York in a few weeks ... and possibly looming just over the horizon for the rest of the country.
What civilian disarmament advocates fail to realize is that this conflict is NOT about firearms. This conflict is about government and/or elitists who refuse to leave people alone. It just happens to be that the citizens are armed and actually have the means to push back ... and that is what scares and infuriates government and elitists.
"What civilian disarmament advocates fail to realize is that this conflict is NOT about firearms. This conflict is about government and/or elitists who refuse to leave people alone."
You guys often say that, but it's not so. You'd like it to be like that, then your fetish would be taken out of the spotlight. But, it's very much about guns, gun availability and the fact that too many unfit people can too easily get guns.
Mikeb, every once in a while, you post something true. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe problem that ails society is not the FACT that more civilians are choosing to arm themselves as a rational preparation for a possible event, but the fact that many people still go unarmed or that those who are wise enough to not venture out in public naked (unarmed) do so vastly under-equipped in comparison to today's criminal. Long gone are the days of the lone felon armed with a switchblade, bat, or the occasional .25 ACP. Most criminals come in packs (including up to a dozen members in my experience), and are packing REAL assault rifles, like Ex-Soviet Bloc AK-74s, FAMAS, QBZ-95 and H&K G3 (not the civvie legal toys) and such firepower simply cannot be matched by a common handgun (let alone an unarmed victim). I have even stumbled upon the occasional Pancor Jackhammer and even a sawn-off Barrett M82. We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs. It is time for the rest of society to step up to the plate. Those who arm themselves must obtain REAL firepower (at least two pistols in States without open carry) or some form of PDW (Personal Defense Weapon for all you newbies) in States with sensible gun laws. Pistols need a MINIMUM of 15 rounds to be effective and ought to have more stopping power than your average pea-shooter (I'm talking .45 acp .357 sig, 10mm auto, or .44 mag in a IMI Desert Eagle or an AutoMag) If your state doesn't trust you to open carry a SCAR, H&K G3, or an AR15, or bans effective magazines (especially the 7 round limit in the Peoples Republic of New York) then you need to be carrying a MINIMUM of two sidearms of reasonable caliber.
DeleteOnly when you can outgun your attacker will you cease to be a victim. We are partners now. CARRY your responsibility.
What attacker, Ozy?
DeleteI wish my County Sheriff were like Mr. Clarke. He speaks the truth. I have seen developments and heard rumblings and murmurs that make it very clear.
ReplyDeleteI finally thought of the simplest way to say it. The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens simply want to be left alone -- free to do with their own lives as they wish while leaving others alone. A government that harasses citizens and confiscates citizens' property without due process is destructive to that way of life. And yet that is the very prospect looming in New York in a few weeks ... and possibly looming just over the horizon for the rest of the country.
What civilian disarmament advocates fail to realize is that this conflict is NOT about firearms. This conflict is about government and/or elitists who refuse to leave people alone. It just happens to be that the citizens are armed and actually have the means to push back ... and that is what scares and infuriates government and elitists.
"What civilian disarmament advocates fail to realize is that this conflict is NOT about firearms. This conflict is about government and/or elitists who refuse to leave people alone."
ReplyDeleteYou guys often say that, but it's not so. You'd like it to be like that, then your fetish would be taken out of the spotlight. But, it's very much about guns, gun availability and the fact that too many unfit people can too easily get guns.