Among the most laughable campaigns in gun lobby history is their recent attempt to re-brand assault rifles as "Modern Sporting Rifles." The gun industry commonly described semiautomatic versions of military-style firearms as "assault weapons" prior to the late 1980s/early 1990s, when a series of gruesome mass shootings with these rifles gave that term a decidedly negative connotation.
Since then, the gun industry's rebranding campaign has been hounded by two persistent problems. Number one is their own inability to complete relinquish use of the term "assault rifle" for marketing purposes. Second, and far more damaging, is the total inability of pro-gun activists to go along with the charade that "Modern Sporting Rifles" are for target shooting and varmint hunting. They simply take too much pleasure in telling us what they really want to do with their assault rifles. For example, consider the following comments that pro-gun activists recently left at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page.
Pro-gun activist Kevin Lomason of Atlanta, Georgia was more than happy to tell us what assault weapons are for:
Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment so that we could arm ourselves and take control of the government if the government gets out of oppressie. Some say that was before assault rifles were invented and the general public should not have assault weapons. If the government has assault weapons and we have muskets, how would we ever protect ourselves against an oppressive government?
As was pro-gunner Jeff Thomas, who had his eye on a machine gun that is typically mounted on helicopters and light aircraft:
The founding fathers meant that we needed enough guns to fight against a oppresive govt. If the govt can buy 30 cal mini guns, we should be able to as well, it's the only way to keep them honest. Look at the gap in weaponry available to them compared to us, look at how corrupt govt. is. Is that a coincidence? As far as the technology of 200 years ago muskets were all the armies of the world had as well, naturally as technology progressed we should have had it available to us as well.
Pro-gun activist Rich Salter agreed with Thomas, and wanted to make it clear that his planned war on our government meant he had a right to any gun he could conceive of:
The 2nd Amendment is referring to all guns. It does not mean just guns for hunting and sports shooting. It is mainly talking about guns that can be used to keep tyrannical governments in check. Our right to keep and bear arms was established so that our government never has complete power over us like the government (Britain) of our founding fathers. Ask the Libyans, the Syrians, the Iraquis, and numerous African countries how it felt for them when the only ones allowed to own guns were their governments? Do you really think our government is so pure and will always look out for our best interests to the point where they would never try to make us do something we did not want to do?
So if "tyranny" is what assault weapons are for, how exactly do pro-gun activists define that term?
We have the 2nd amendment to stop tyrannical government. IE: Obama.
Well, guess Jermey Mecham of Provo, Utah made that patently clear. And if he didn't, pro-gunner Chad Hudson sure did...
theres nothing intelligent about the government people expect the same useless ass bastards that have been destroying this so called equal country for years to fix a obviously heated situation people will raally around anything useless as gun control its like war on drugs thats a failure and so is gun control seriously they do nothing but send jobs over seas and tell you whats right and wrong in their eyes in my oppinion someone should storm dc and kill off government start new and make this place about people instead of the dollar
And Al Winter...
lock n load stand ready for the time is soon
And Christopher Edwards Penta and Matthew Groom of Cocoa, Florida...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." They didn't talk out of their asses. They just got through slaughtering representatives of the Crown over taxdollars and legislative representation. They would have been shooting YEARS ago.
And David Albert Desrosiers of Phoenix, Arizona...
You'll never get our ARs EVER. We will fight to the last patriot to stop it. I hope you're ready to kill a few million people because that's what you will have to do. Molon Labe ... Are you a statist? Then you have no grasp of the Second Amendment at all. You think it was to protect duck hunting? Target shooting? If calling me an insurrectionist makes your ivory tower feel all nice and shiny, go right ahead. I'll see you in November when this nonsense is dealt with as it should be.
And Steve from Twitter...
it doesn't matter what SCOTUS says there are more black guns in the hands of civs 2day than ever and any attempt to change this = CWar
And pro-gun activistJeff Pennington...
to all of you ignorant gun ban pussies. you don't like the second amendment? you don't like people being able to defend themselves? shut your shit stinking mouths or go find another country to live in. Great Brittan is a pussy country with no guns, so is Australia, among others, pick your place to be vulnerable to crime and go there and die. goodbye and good riddance. "we the people" will never allow our 2nd amendment right to be taken, not ever, even if it means civil war, and it will be the low life liberals like all of you that we will be after. you can count on that. We are taking our country back. this is not your country. oh by the way take your atheist's and homo freaks with you.
And this anonymous commenter at our blog...
the government is orchestrating these shootings to create a state of panic in the nation to justify banning guns thus starting a cival war, the likes of which has never been seen before, anyone that doesnt serve the constitution will be exterminated from this country!
One thing is certain about these folks. They have a profound lack of faith in the system of government established by our Founders. And that includes that voting thing, as pro-gunner Robert Wykes made clear:
Unless you can disarm all the governments, crooks and thieves, how would this make anything better? Especially when they are synonymous! If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it. Wake up, we have a fascist government wanting to disarm you from protecting yourself....from them!
Because, after all, the Constitution...it's just a useless "piece of paper," right?
There is no such thing as a civil, safe or secure society without guns. The weak and defenseless become easy prey. Those who are hated by their gov't for whatever reason are made victims of genocide and every imaginable cruelty (eg the Jews in Hitler's time and Protestants during the reign of Catholicism in the dark ages). History and current events scream of the dangers of having no legitimate power of defense against common criminals and mos importantly gov'ts. A piece of paper is not legitimate (try using that on an attacker). Many countries have wonderful constitutions--in vain. Having guns doesn't mean violence it prevents it more than anything else. Common sense would dictate that if criminals knew you were armed they'd be less likely to threaten you, fearing for their own safety. This creates peace. If we were as armed as police and military they would fear to harm us if given the orders to do so. This creates even greater and more valuable peace and security. Why has America been one f the greatest havens in the world and enjoyed considerable absense of gov't threats to its citizens for so many years? Why did refugees flock here to escape their own countries? If every poor and oppressed person in 3rd world countries could bear sufficient arms able to defend themselves against their oppressors they too could enjoy the benefits we have in our civilized world. But, instead, they are brutalized, abused, kept in poverty and ignorance, and suffer oppression we don't even know of. And in the end, in spite of all this, and reason and common sense, many people with to see the only worthwhile place left on earth to live in full of defenseless, once-free people at the mercy and disposal of criminals who obey no laws and gov'ts [historically and currently known for mass murder ( not to mention the most gruesome and horribly unimaginable cruelties every devised)] guilty of the blood of unnumbered hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.
At least that's what pro-gunner Robin Fox tells us.
So much for keeping a secret, huh? These insurrectionists might as well be beating their chests and screaming, "LOOK AT ME!"
Well, OK, we see you, and read you loud and clear. And it makes us more determined than ever to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.
Among the most laughable campaigns in gun lobby history is their recent attempt to re-brand assault rifles as "Modern Sporting Rifles." The gun industry commonly described semiautomatic versions of military-style firearms as "assault weapons" prior to the late 1980s/early 1990s, when a series of gruesome mass shootings with these rifles gave that term a decidedly negative connotation.
Since then, the gun industry's rebranding campaign has been hounded by two persistent problems. Number one is their own inability to complete relinquish use of the term "assault rifle" for marketing purposes. Second, and far more damaging, is the total inability of pro-gun activists to go along with the charade that "Modern Sporting Rifles" are for target shooting and varmint hunting. They simply take too much pleasure in telling us what they really want to do with their assault rifles. For example, consider the following comments that pro-gun activists recently left at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page.
