Women, how does it feel being assumed an idiot?
Anti-gun people think you are stupid, so they target you...
Yes targets. Women are targets of a very successful campaign to lead you down a path to a world view that sounds great on the surface, but terminates in a very dreary dead end. There is a very powerful element in the U.S. that wants you to believe that firearms are bad, and that there is an epidemic of death by guns, especially among children. You may say "of course! everybody knows that!", but is it really so? This same element of society wants to use fear to frighten people into believing that children are at a high risk due to "assault weapons" and machine guns. This element wants you to know that drug dealers and gang members buy 'evil looking guns' because of gun show loopholes and that there are extra-deadly bullets called "cop killers" that are a menace to society. They do all this by playing on your natural emotions and fears, and they are very successful.
But consider if you discovered that you had been lied to. Not a little white lie or a fib here and there, but wholesale, pre-planned deception. Consider how you would feel if you were played as a fool, assumed to be ignorant and a useful tool in their hands. How would you feel? Betrayed? Offended? Angry? If you discovered that your status as a woman or a mother had been used against you, your emotional bond to you children seen as a convenient mainline to your heart and used to advance a political worldview that you may not at all agree with, would that be at least slightly offensive? Would it bother you that there is an organized effort to play on your fears to the point of hysteria?
The fact is, you have been lied to about firearms, and lied to with a very carefully crafted lie that plays you like a harp if you allow it to. The element deceiving you is of course the American left. This is admittedly a broad term, but the left in American encompasses a vast array of groups and loosely related and at least partially similar ideologies. The primary players in this element are Democrats, Socialists, Utopians, and those who like to call themselves "progressives". But the rank and file left-leaning American has shown him or herself to be extremely uninformed about firearms as a whole, and so they are easily lead by their policy makers whether they admit it or not. So easily lead that they become zealots for a cause they don't understand, and consider anyone who doesn't tow their line to be crazy, uninformed, or stupid. The results, pushed upon an emotionally charged, scared population, are counterproductive laws and regulations that do nothing to protect you or your children from the perceived threat of what they call "gun violence". In fact, many of the laws that sound great when CNN or the local paper reports them, are far from what they appear on the surface. Surely you remember the big spat about the "Assault Weapons Ban"? But did you know that during the ban, sales of guns like Kalshnikovs (AK-47 clones) and AR-15 (U.S. commercial version of the military's M-16) were higher than ever? The ban did nothing to keep the firearms out of the hands of gun owners, nothing at all. Sales skyrocketed. But did you feel more safe? Perhaps. Did crime skyrocket when the ban expired, with the predicted blood running in the streets and 'machine guns' in every house? No. With the ban spawning a large boost in the number of firearms actually sold, one would expect crime to have jumped in response, but it didn't. Something did not add up.
The reason firearms regulation and deceptive laws like the "Assault Weapons Ban" do little to affect crime and the safety of the average mom and dad and their children is simple- only people who obey the law in the first place are affected. If a crook decides to hold you up a gunpoint, do you think a silly law about how many imported parts are allowed in his gun will keep him from using his gun in a violent manner? Of course not. He's a criminal, laws are merely an annoyance to him. But that is one of the regulations on the books that a law abiding citizen must observe if he wants to enjoy shooting sports with firearms that have a certain number of characteristics.
During the 10 year long Assault Weapons "ban", which expired in September of last year, one could easily walk into a local gun shop and plop down some cash for an AK-47 type rifle. "But they were banned, right?" That was usually the first question asked by non-gun owners. The truth was quite different. While anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March and the Violence Policy Center wanted you to believe that these kinds of rifles were the choice of gangsters and drug addicts, dangerous to schools and police, and preferred by criminals, there was little truth in their claims. Though the government's own statistics told a completely different story, anti-gun groups pushed and pushed, playing on your fears and emotions, counting on the chance that you did not know any better, to pass the "Assault Weapons Ban". And all the happy children were safe again, right? Well, they were never in any more or less danger from the weapons in question. Why? The ban did not "ban" these weapons at all, it only declared a handful of cosmetic features to be illegal. You could still buy a semiautomatic version of an AK to enjoy at the range, but it had to have some of its looks altered. No folding stocks, no bayonet lugs, no flash hiders, etc. Nothing at all in the ban had anything to do with the availability of the rifle itself. The very names of the banned features were used against you to scare you as well. After all, who "needs" a bayonet? Why would you want a "flash hider"? These and other features were vilified. But criminals don't use bayonets, it is a rare day when the headlines report a local drive-by bayonetting. But people who are looking for collectible history prefer the bayonet lugs to be present on their rifle for authenticity. These are the peple who generally obey the law, collectors, enthusiasts, people who know more abut guns and gun safety than the average news reporter, and far more than the average crook. And flash hiders were another "scary feature" we were told we could not be trusted with. The left told you that a flash hider would make a criminal shooter unseen by observers, concealing him, and they implied this feature was used by crooks to hide at night and fire unseen into kindergartens and old folks homes. But that was a lie, and they took you for a fool. A flash hider simply diverts the flash from the shooter's field of view, it doesn't hide it from observers. This is a safety measure, for a law abiding shooter does not want to be blinded by his or her own rifle, that becomes a hazard to others at the range. So, yet another counterproductive point in the law was passed on the basis of fear and ignorance.
But why do you "need" this rifle, with or without these evil features? That is the most asked question of us gun owners. The answer is multifold, but the reason why one would have a "need" for such rifles is not as important as the reason why we shouldn't have them. These kinds of weapons are not significant contributors to any sort of social problems despite what those who are against firearms in general will tell you. These kinds of weapons are not found to be significant contributors to crimes committed with firearms at all, instead, cheap, easily concealable handguns purchased illegally off the streets are preferred by criminals who desire to use guns in crime. If assault rifles are rarely used in crime, why should they be banned outright before any other kind of firearm? The answer is that they are easily misrepresented to the public, and make a convenient stepping stone to future gun control. The very fact that someone can say "why do you need such a weapon" is a direct result of these weapons being misunderstood by means of misrepresentation. Many people will say that "no one needs such a high powered weapon" or something to that effect. And that is telling of ignorance, for assault rifles are in fact not high powered.
To illustrate, lets compare a basic AK-47 style rifle to an average deer rifle that anyone over 18 can legally buy at WalMart. The AK is a medium powered rifle that fires a medium sized cartridge, while the deer rifle must be powerful and strong, it fires a full scale, high power cartridge. An AK has an effective range of 300 yards or so, but granddad's Wal Mart deer rifle has an effective range of 800 to 1000 yards. An AK is capable of hitting a pie plate at 100 yards, beyond that its accuracy falls off drastically, while a deer rifle must hit that pie plate all the way to the end of its effective range in order to kill cleanly and humanely. Another noteworthy characteristic of the average seer rifle is that it can shoot through an M113 armored personnel carrier, unlike an AK. These are the boxy tank-like vehicles that the US used to carry troops in combat during the Viet Nam era. Now that is a Wal Mart rifle, mind you. Put a scope on it and place it in the hands of a well trained shooter and the Wal Mart rifle is very much like those rifles used by military snipers. By the logic employed by the anti-gun crowd, deer rifles pose a greater threat to society than the average assault rifle.
Another myth that often spawns the question "why do you need one of those" is the misconception that assault rifles are machine guns. This is not true. The rifles affected by the "Assault Weapons Ban" were not machine guns at all, but semi-automatic rifles that fire on bullet per trigger pull. It comes as a surprise to most that true machine guns are perfectly legal in most states, provided you can afford to buy one. Pay your $200 tax stamp to the ATF and submit to a background check, and you can purchase a machine gun. But not a semi-automatic rifle? Anti-gun groups deceive you but calling these semi-automatic rifles "bullet hoses" and claim they are designed to be "spray fired from the hip". They are neither. And if they were, it wouldn't matter, because they STILL are statistically insignificant when it comes to crime.
The question of need is curious too, and many gun owners will respond with a similar question, such as "why do you need a Porsche, when a Chevy will get you there just the same?" After all, cars kill far more people per year than assault rifles.
The question of need is irrelevant, what we gun owners are doing is enjoying a sport or recreational activity, exercising a right protected by the constitution, and securing our personal self defense. The question of need is simply not important when a citizen has the right to partake in owning a piece of equipment that poses little threat to anyone. If we, as a society, begin basing our property laws on the basis of need, we will have to ban much more than guns. Conversely, if we justify the banning the ownership of things that are potentially dangerous to innocent people, we would be wise to first ban those things that statistically kill more people. Many are shocked to learn that 5 gallon buckets kill more small children than guns each year, but no one calls for "reasonable restrictions" on 5 gallon buckets. Baseball bats and other instruments that cause blunt trauma also kill more small children each year than guns, as do automobiles and household cleaning products, but we don't ban these items "for the children", instead, we expect owners of such items to exercise safety and responsibility.
But even armed with the knowledge that firearms that have a military look and heritage are little different in function than a standard, accepted sporting arm, sometimes the question still arises, "why do you want them?". Now that's more like it! Owning such firearms, which we have already learned are not any special threat to society, children, or little old ladies, is also multifold. Some folks like the history and heritage of these rifles. Some prefer the utility of these rifles -- they work well and are inexpensive to shoot. Some people like the ability to own a firearm for self defense or person and property, especially rural people who live in sparsely populated areas where there rifles are good for keeping small varmint animals and pests away from herds and crops. Some people own these firearms because they are great fun, make superb "plinkers" at the range. Some owners appreciate the innovative engineering and design, the craftsmanship and thought that went into the making of such a firearm. Some folks do like to hunt with them, though most assault rifles are not powerful enough to use for hunting, some are suitable. Others buy them because the anti-gun crowd says they shouldn't. And finally, most owners have these kinds of weapons because they are fun.
The vilification of these rifles has been constant, but unfounded. The owners of such rifles are shown to be no threat to society. The rifles themselves are little different in function than any other semi-automatic rifle, and have no special power advantage over grandpa's deer rifle. In fact, the anti gun crowd has been successful in demonizing even those who would desire such a rifle. They used YOU to do so. Do you appreciate being an unknowing tool in the hands of people who desire to eliminate rights from people who are no threat to society? Do you appreciate people like Michael Moore claiming to speak for you about an issue that he clearly deceives you about? Are you happy that a Million Moms are parading on your behalf by engaging your emotions deceptively? If a husband or trusted friend treated you in the manner of those who propose "reasonable restrictions", you would be justifiably incensed!
Do not be a target for people who stand for banning private property simply because they have a larger agenda. Do not stand to be lied to by anti-gun zealots who would use your emotions against you. Question them, find out who supports them financially, learn the real statistics, learn the truth about women and guns, kids and guns, gun crime. You will find that you indeed have been used, as a stepping stone to a greater agenda, and that the end game is not about "assault weapons", but guns in general. History and current affairs show that when guns are banned crime rates skyrocket and public safety decreases, is that a place we want to be? It is up to you.