THE NRA ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS BULLSHIT

THE NRA ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS BULLSHIT

Matt HealeyThursday,17 January 2013

The Snap:

There has been a lot of talk about what the correct response should be to escalating gun violence in the U.S. Having lived in a country that has little to no violence, I can say eliminating gun violence is possible. It will require steps that both the left and the right hate, but it can be done. This post will focus on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and why the argument against an assault weapons ban is bullshit.

The Download:

Duck hunting is not the reason the NRA opposes the ban. Personal protection is not the reason the NRA opposes the ban. Sport shooting is not the reason the NRA opposes the ban. The reason is best explained by Alex Jones appearing on Piers Morgan. Alex is a little concerned that without his assault weapon the U.S. government will come and impose a despotic dictatorship. After all, the U.S. elected a Socialist Muslim who was born in Kenya. Clearly we are moving toward a total government take over. This kind of vitriol has been going on since the 2008 election and has scared the shit out of what Fox News calls Traditional Americans — read white suburbanites. Their response has been to arm themselves against the coming takeover.

But this argument is bullshit. The second amendment was written so that a militia could overthrow the government. In 1776, that was possible as the difference in technology between military hardware and the hardware available to the citizens was insignificant. A militia could fight and win against an army. This was proven in the American revolution. The situation has now changed. Military technology is now so advanced that citizens can not hope to stand up to it. The fully automatic  version of the AR-15 shoots 800 rounds per min. That sounds impressive until you realize that the fully automatic version is already banned and the semi-automatic version has a much slower fire rate. But let’s run with that number and compare it to the M134 mini gun, which the Mythbusters team used to prove that shooting fish in a barrel was easy. The M134 that the Mythbusters used fires 50 bullets a second. That translates to 3000 bullets a minute, almost four times the rate of the AR-15. But wait — there are even more lethal versions of the M134 that fire twice as many bullets per minute — 100 bullets per minute. How can a civilian expect to fight this kind of fire power? The delusion that you could fight the U.S. Army in the event of a government takeover with your AR-15 is insane. All you will accomplish will be to provide the soldiers with a reason to start firing, and once they do, the fight is over.

This does not mean that the citizens are powerless. The citizens can fight back — but not with force. In this case we need to take a lesson from China. Specifically Tiananman square. In that situation a totally unarmed man stopped a tank simply by refusing to step out of the way. A tank! You could not stop a tank with an AR-15, but you can without one. Yes there is a risk and you have to be willing to be run over. You also have to believe that the average American soldier will have a problem with following illegal orders to kill unarmed Americans. If that is not the case, then don’t worry about the takeover — because it has already happened.

Hat Tips:

Alex Jones, National Review, Wikipedia, Birthers.org, Traditional Americans, Business Insider, Mythbusters, Military Factory, Tiananmen Square, Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Take Action!



Trackbacks

  1. […] magazines. I think that the argument against it does not hold up to scrutiny as I have written here. Regardless, the issue should be debated in congress and voted on. This is the democratic process. […]

  2. […] of my personal opinion on the topic – which you can read here and here — I wonder if we are entering a period where shifting demographics are going to […]

  3. […] while ago I wrote that the NRA argument against the assault weapons ban was bull. It did not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny, but it sounded good. We now get another BS argument […]

Subscribe to get updates delivered to your inbox