What Michael Moore and Liberals Don’t (and Will Never) Understand About the Second Amendment

http://mensnewsdaily.com ^ | September 06, 2005 | http://mensnewsdaily.com

[King Prout]

here's my baby:

an Egyptian AK47, highly customized by yours truly.

[Paloma_55]

When you say "stiffer than the current US laws", are you referring to "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? or the other laws that infringe?

[King Prout]

well put.

[King Prout]

HCI (or whatever they are now calling themselves) favors eventual complete disarmament of the civil populace.

[AlaskaErik]

Is Michael Moore actually in favor of total disarmament or more gun control because there is a difference? I'm not a Michael Moore fan so don't flame me but I think it is important to accurately report a person's position on a given topic. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control....maybe not as bad as Canada but stiffer than the current US laws.

There's no difference other than how fast total disarmament is accomplished. Those who want more regulation are doing it incrementally, but their ultimate goal is also total disarmament. Basically same end result, different tactics.

[hiredhand]

That's neat! :-) Good job! Here's my favorite..."Mostly" an STG-58 FAL.



I took the scope off because my daughter wanted it on her Ruger 10/22. I've got a C-More Railway on it now.

[Marauder]

I believe that the Micahel Moores and their ilk understand this protection very well and it is the principle reason they want it done away with...so they and their ilk can have a free hand.

You obviously understand the Second Amendment AND the left's reasons for wanting it done away with. This is why they are so "flat earth" about it and arguments against registration and confiscation have no resonance with them.

They want the guns taken up for the same reasons the Nazis and the Soviets wanted them taken up.

[Gefreiter]

"Following the looting of the local Dollar Store..."

Is that a joke?

[King Prout]

this gives a better view of some of the modifications. the pic is over a year old - it has evolved a bit since then, and shall evolve further as time and efforts permit:

[King Prout]

btw - what IS that thing on the right side of the fore-end? flashlight?

[hiredhand]

Woah! Hold up! Did you convert that AK to bullpup?!

[freepatriot32]

"Following the looting of the local Dollar Store..." Is that a joke?

unfortunately no that really happened

[George Smiley]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control....maybe not as bad as Canada but stiffer than the current US laws.

I'm going to correct you because you ARE wrong.

While they proclaim incrementalism in terms of controls, they are following the playbook that was invented by the anti-smoking lobby.

Remember how in the beginning they just wanted to ban smoking in the front of airliners?

It's a perfect illustration of Hayek's dictum about attempts to impose central economic planning in "The Road to Serfdom":

The initial attempts at control fail, and so subsequent and more stringent attempts at control must be made in order to retain power.

The ultimate result of this (both in terms of firearms and economic planning) is totalitarianism.

[recce guy]

I have a hard time believing these groups seek total disarmament but I don't pay much attention to them. Have any groups actually claimed this or is this just paranoid speculation. Total disarmament is a ridiculous position to take and would be impossible. Are they just seeking to have assault rifles banned or registration of hand guns or a total ban on all forms of weapons??

[Jeff Head]

Stiffer control in the face of the constitutional mandate that government "shall not infringe" is just another step towards gun control, registration and ultimate governmental control

All of those are steps down a very bad path.

Moore is an advocate of steps down that path.

[RKV]

No flames. When you say "gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control" what you need to add, is that the ultimate goal is ban private possession of arms. The US Constitution as written does not allow that. Prior to the 14th Amendment maybe the states could do that, but not after it was passed. Notwithstanding the black robed tyrants who will find out too late, that they are not the last word in Constitutional jurisprudence. The people are.

[hiredhand]

YES! It's a Pelican M-6...BLINDINGLY bright out to about 75 feet. It gives one "about" 2.5 seconds to decide friend or foe while the person on the receiving end recovers from the disorientation it causes in low light. :-)

[libstripper]

The protection the seond amendment thus affords is also, as I say, very good for protection against the lesser criminals associated with looting and civil upheavel during such disasters as well, which are also perfectly capable of making you dead if you are not suitably armed.

Congratulations on your reference to "lesser criminals." It implies that socialists like Michael Moore are greater criminals, which they certainly are.

[Jeff Head]

Those lesser criminals, while dangerous at the individual level, are out for a very limited amount of death and or destruction. The liberal elite and other leftists or RINO look alikes, like all tyrants, have a much broader view in mind that will effect hundreds of millions.