Describing how Americans on the left end of the political spectrum and the right end of that spectrum are arming themselves in anticipation of civil unrest in this country, an article printed in The Washington Post makes the following statement:
Such scenes look ominous to extremism analysts who warn of an elevated risk of political violence from vigilantes who wield the AR-15 as both tool and symbol.
Militants say they favor the AR-15 for all the same reasons mainstream enthusiasts do — it’s easy to handle, affordable and customizable — but they also exploit the fear surrounding the weapon.
“It’s just a tool, an inanimate object, but it is polarizing, and it’ll make people treat you differently,” said Cody, 26, a member of an anti-government militia group near Norfolk, who spoke on the condition that his full name be withheld for security reasons. “It will make people treat you differently if you are armed with an AR-15.”
As you can see, the article quickly pivots from a piece on the reasons the Right and Left are arming themselves to a condemnation of the AR-15, the mainstream media’s favorite boogeyman.
The ArmaLite Rifle 15, or AR-15, is a semi-automatic rifle that is popular in civilian and military use. It was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite in the 1950s and a variation on the design was later adopted by the U.S. military as the M16 rifle.
The AR-15 is a lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle that fires intermediate cartridges. It is desirable for its modularity, accuracy, and versatility, as well as its easy customization to suit the user’s preferences and needs. While the AR-15 is a popular sporting rifle and is often used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense, it has also been the subject of controversy due to mainstream media claims that it is the favorite of mass murderers.
Select variations of the AR-15 were included in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which likely accounts for the erroneous — and easily refuted — claim by gun grabbers that the AR nomenclature stands for “assault rifle,” or “automatic rifle.”
Of course, constitutionally speaking, it doesn’t matter what the AR stands for. It could stand for “assault rifle,” and every federal regulation of that firearm would be unconstitutional and an assault on the natural right of every person to protect his life, liberty, and property with whatever weapon he chooses.
But the Washington Post piece wants to convince the reader that the AR-15 is a symbol of hate and a weapon used by “radicals” with an eye on overthrowing the government:
Other far-right factions throughout the country have shown up with AR-15s to intimidate voters and local officials, harass Muslims outside of mosques, and stand as self-appointed guards at pro-Donald Trump rallies. Anti-government militias also have brandished AR-15s in armed standoffs with federal agents, such as the one in 2014 led by rancher Cliven Bundy in Bunkerville, Nev. “Boogaloo” extremists, part of a right-leaning movement calling for violent revolution, have made the AR-15 a core part of their look, sometimes adorning their weapons with coded symbols.
Instead of worrying about what the AR in AR-15 means, the author of the Washington Post piece needs to do some research and learn the definition of the words “infringe” and “militia.”
The Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There isn’t a word in the U.S. Constitution as ratified, or in the Bill of Rights, granting to the federal government any authority whatsoever to disarm the people for any reason.
Every attempt by government on any level to impede the people from keeping and bearing arms — even “assault weapons” — is unconstitutional, illogical, and ineffective.
We know they are unconstitutional for the reasons mentioned above, as well as the 10th Amendment’s reservation to the states and the people of all powers not granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.
We know they are illogical because it makes no sense to believe that making it more difficult to obtain a weapon will deter a killer from carrying out his or her evil object. Would someone determined to violate the most sacred of all human laws — that against the cold blooded killing of another person — somehow decide to obey a much lesser “law” against purchasing this or that weapon? The very suggestion is ridiculous.
We know they are ineffective because disarming law-abiding people — people who would never commit a crime as heinous as that committed at the school in Nashville and other cities — has proven powerless to prevent such atrocities. Nevertheless, every time some such tragedy occurs, the government — one way or another — imposes some new restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Better said, some new infringement on that right.
As for the Washington Post’s fearmongering of “militants” armed with “instrument[s] of domestic terror,” they know what they are doing. What they want is to disarm YOU! They know they want to consolidate control of all weapons into the very hands of that entity which has been the cause of more armed atrocities that all civilian killers combined.
Finally, with regard to the claim in the Post piece that militias “are assessed as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats” to national security, I suggest a closer reading of the first line of the Second Amendment, as well as this definition of “militia” and designation of the arms civilians can and should keep and bear, provided by forgotten Founding Father, Tench Coxe:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
