Preserving the Second Amendment – An Open Letter From Ron Barrett of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing

This article appeared on New York City Guns. Those Americans are now facing the most draconian firearms laws in our nation. Some will initially lack empathy for them. After all, they live in a “Blue” state don’t they? However, to steal an appropriate phrase from the Founders, “we must stand together or we will surely hang separately.” When restrictive laws are enacted in one area, it’s a boost to the anti-2A crowd giving them momentum on the national stage. We must stop their momentum. Wide, sweeping gun bans are generally easy to stop, it’s the death by a thousand cuts approach that Ron Barrett talks about here, that is harder to resist. One thing that I picked up from this letter, is the automatic knife argument. Consider using it in your discussions on the subject. Let your legislators know how you feel. Reach out to those on the fence and engage them in a positive way.


In the never-ending battle to destroy our constitution, more “big lie” propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. The rhetoric given forth by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) so easily deceived the legislators of California, resulting in the banning of fifty caliber rifles because they are powerful and their bullets punch holes when they strike. Even single shot .50 cal rifles were banned. It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles.

What lies before us is the continuation of the misinformation campaign, trying to coax yet another state to infringe upon the U.S. Constitution as California did. The anti-freedom/anti-gun movement has discovered how transparent they appear when they propose sweeping gun bans and now are successful by biting off a little at a time. Ever so small, many politicians are trading off your rights without you recognizing their violations.

First we had the “Saturday Night Special” which was all affordable handguns, then “sniper rifles” which were any scoped deer rifles. Those were obvious, too big a scam to go unnoticed, but with the creation and demonization of the term “assault weapon,” the Clinton’s Crime bill produced a wasted 10-year setback on your freedoms and safe gun design. Now comes another scam. This time they are shocked to discover that rifles are “accurate and powerful.”

This is the same bull the officials in the 1950?s fell for when they banned the self-unfolding knife. First the knife was demonized by giving it an evil name, “switchblade,” then we (the trusting public) were told that the problem of gang violence was solved with its banning. How ridiculous. It’s surprising they didn’t ban the leather jacket. In reality, gang violence was and is a serious social problem, but it was not related to manually unfolding verses self-unfolding knives. The elected officials voting to ban an object like a knife proved themselves unwilling or uncaring to understand the problem, and thus, incapable of any real solutions.

The handful of people that make up the VPC are solely responsible for the big lie on .50?s, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities. They manipulate fear by claiming terrorists will use these rifles on targets of our infrastructure. “They will shut down our airports in flames” they claim. VPC’s Tom Diaz refers to them as “super guns” lying to his dupable group of politicians, concealing the facts that there are many rifle cartridges that are comparable in performance (those will be added to the list in phase two). He is boldly telling these officials (and all who will listen) that the risk of terrorist attacks on these targets will be solved with the banning of powerful rifles, in this case, the .50 caliber rifle. In reality, terrorism is complex and will be defeated with improved intelligence. In this instance, the officials voting to ban an inanimate object like a rifle prove themselves to be ignorant of the problem of terrorism and are wasting time and resources.

You must understand the brilliance of this dangerous back door deception. Your politicians are being told that the fifty is a highly destructive cartridge that can destroy airplanes, fuel transport trucks and depot storages of fuel. They show videos like the one on 60 Minutes showing a 1/2 inch plate of steel being pierced by a .50 cal round while stopping a .308 caliber. This is all to confuse the people, those with little exposure to firearms; their impression concludes that the .50 punches holes in sensitive targets where other rifles cannot. Had they shot actual aluminum that is used on airplane construction, or aluminum or steel used in actual transport or tank construction, both the .50 and the .308 will pierce along with most all centerfire cartridges. But this, they must keep secret.

First, with the confusion of massive, (although incorrect) technical data and the hammering of urgency, the VPC demands a ban or strict regulations on rifles that chamber a cartridge that has the ability to penetrate targets. Sound ridiculous? It is.
VPC’s Tom Diaz appears often on TV with maps of Washington, DC, irresponsibly instructing where to position one’s self to illegally fire on vulnerable important targets of our government, promising these specific targets will be safe when .50?s are banned. He pressures politicians to act quickly on this URGENT legislation needed to make these terrorist targets safe, hoping they will act before the VPC lies are discovered.

Now slow down. A ban on a rifle because the cartridge it shoots penetrates targets? By the legislation naming and defining the targets that are damageable by rifle fire, and in this case, .50 cal. rifle fire, they create a new class of rifles. This new class is not defined by such foolishness as detachable magazines, flash hiders, or pistol grips. Instead, the test is; does it fire a bullet that punches a hole, and can the hole result in damage to specified and named targets? If so, the law-abiding citizen shouldn’t be allowed to have this, so they must ban this class of rifle before they can be misused. This is the very thing California has just passed!

“Now, we are only talking about those powerful .50 cals, right? It’s such a small class, no one will mind or even notice.” That’s what the VPC’s lies have lead you to believe. No, remember they are banning rifles because specific targets named in our infrastructure are susceptible to damage. Now tell me, what centerfire rifle cartridge won’t punch holes in those targets? What centerfire rifle cartridge is not powerful? Not many or not any? So, in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the law, the Attorney General or State Secretary must add those cartridges to the banned list. The big lie is exposed. They aren’t just talking about .50?s. They’re after your hunting rifles, centerfire target rifles-just about any rifle you own.

Unlike California, we cannot allow any of our local, state, or federal officials to be deceived with any of this “big lie” gun control propaganda. The U.S. has every gun law that could possibly be needed. Virtually every real world scenario of firearm abuse is already covered in some law that is currently on the books.

Many of you have inquired as to the outcome of the letter I wrote to Police Chief Bratten of the LAPD. Unfortunately, the chief’s position did not change. He continued to use his officers in the same deceptive practices formerly utilized with the city council. These few officers testifying in Sacramento ultimately contributed to the unconstitutional AB50 law being passed. It saddened me to have to tell members of the LAPD SWAT team that they would have to send someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution. In turn, the department arranged to pick up their un-serviced rifle.

Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.

I appreciate all the phone calls and e-mails from LAPD officers and civilians during that time, encouraging and supporting our actions. We shall see if other firearms companies will follow this path. I know many are corporately owned and feel like they are unable to risk the life of their company for the liberties of our nation, but if we lose our Republic, our freedom, what good is any of it? I am in the proud and fortunate position that many of our forefathers were in when they risked all for our liberties.

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry

This “ban large bore” insanity failed in Washington years ago, but that didn’t discourage the VPC. Now it’s resurfacing in city council meetings, in individual states, and it’s being reintroduced in Washington. NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, once told me “These (anti-freedom, anti-gun) guys never go away, and they never quit.”

I’ve received thousands of e-mails and letters from you offering encouragement and support. Our Republic, our liberty, needs and demands your support. You must take action to guard your rights. First, find your State Senator and State Representative. Tell them not to fall for this scam. This lie depends on the elected official being naive about firearms and their capabilities. Stand ready to carry this same message to your U.S. Senator and Representatives. Know all of your elected officials’ positions on gun issues. DO NOT ELECT ANY ANTI-GUN PERSON TO ANY POSITION!

Position yourself with me in the battles that we must fight. You need to join the NRA, the Fifty Caliber Shooters’ Association, and the NSSF in order to stay informed. These people have been with me in the trenches, fighting for every inch of the liberty you enjoy.

Today we draw a line; there will be no more nibbling at our freedom. Today you stand idle no longer. Today you do something to save our country!

Ronnie Barrett
Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc


28 Responses to “Preserving the Second Amendment – An Open Letter From Ron Barrett of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing”

  1. John says:

    Is there any word of Barrett discontinuing service to the State of NY? I would hope other companies would follow.

  2. Mr. European says:

    So anti-gun = anti-freedom?
    “I will not be free if I don’t have the ability to kill a man at several hundred paces!”
    So your freedom of speech is not worth talking about, your freedom of faith is not worth believing in, your freedom of association is irrelevant, your freedom to assemble is irrelevant and your freedom to hold differing ideals is irrelevant… but if they ever try to change your “freedom” to own modern military-grade armaments, you decry your elected government as being tyrannical?

    So the Patriot Act wasn’t tyrannical, several NDAA subsections weren’t tyrannical, but trying to restrict powerful military arms to the military and law enforcement is?

    And on a far more cynical note, of course mr. Barrett doesn’t want arms restrictions, he has an invested interest in selling arms. Even though the military (yours and others) are an important customer, a drop in civilian purchases will nibble at his profits. And in this day and age many would say that green trumps red.

    And on a realist note: there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Not in a society. Especially when it deals with things that are meant for nothing else but causing injury and death.

    • Lawrence says:

      “things that are meant for nothing else but causing injury and death.”

      Yes, guns cause injury and death. Yes, that is what they are designed to do. And so are axes, swords, clubs, knives, nun-chuks, balls and chains, etc. And as such, they can be used to defend and protect life or they can be used to unlawfully take it.

      ANY tool can be misused, even the “harmless” box-cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists and the machetes used by rebels in Rwanda. So, where are the calls to ban them? Surely, we’ll all be safe and cozy if only these terrible assault weapons are banned as well?

      The problem is not the tool – the problem is the fool with the tool. And even more so, the fool who fears the tool more than the other fool with the tool.

      Yes, you can argue that Mr. Barrett has a vested interest in the issue. Well, I don’t own a firearms company nor do I own a high-powered rifle – so I don’t have a vested interest, but I still agree with him.

      And I also agree with your point about how our other rights are being eroded – and we should be equally alarmed about them as well. But the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, your property and your liberty is the most fundamental of all.

      Take away that right and the rest are just fancy words on an old piece of paper that don’t mean anything any more.

      • Lawrence says:

        P.S. We’re also all pissed off because of the injustice and ineffectiveness of these bans.

        1. Injustice – it is an injustice in the extreme to punish decent, peaceful, law-abiding, contributing members of society for the illegal outrages committed by criminals and other leaches on society.

        2. Ineffectiveness – as has been proven time and time again, bans like this do absolutely nothing to stop crime, to reduce murder rates or to protect the innocent and the good.

        So, take your sanctimonious superiority complex and shove it up your arse.

        • Mr. European says:

          Hardly a superiority complex. An observation.
          This place is open to the world, so you should expect hearing from the rest of the world as fellow human beings.

          So it’s injustice to even attempt to limit wicked people’s access to weapons?

          Effectiveness can be debated until the sun turns cold as ash, but if laws are there, they’re enforced to the best of the state’s abilities and intent.

      • Mr. European says:

        To note, axes and knives are tools. They have weaponized forms, but those two arose as utilitarian implements.

        And indeed any tool can be misused, from a toothpick to a state, but some tools are more effective than others in their capacity for destruction.
        ITT .50cals are an example. Do you know why .50cal rounds were developed? 1918 as anti-tank munitions. Tanks have advanced, but the round is effective against soft/semi-soft targets. Since I don’t see any iron-hide mammoths living in North America, would a .50cal be in any way needed? Unless some fool wants to go against black helicopters :/

        Further with the fool with the tool argument, wouldn’t making the process of getting modern military arms more difficult be beneficial? Nowadays at any gun show it can basically be “Ermahgerd, I gots an AK-16!!” If a more involved process is there to weed out the fools, why would it be a bad thing? If you’re capable of handling the weapon responsibly, and have good reasons for it, you’ll get it. And this deals with modern military-style arms. I’m sure older-style long-arms are MUCH easier to get. And as they’re less optimized for the purpose of killing as modern arms are, they won’t be as destructive in the wrong hands.

        In the self-defence department what can you expect if any fool can get his hands on a weapon? People need to understand it isn’t the damn wild west anymore, it’s the 21st century! Even though I’ve seen plenty of news items on your police overreaching their authority, on principle I am baffled by the deep mistrust people have with law enforcement. Sure, they’re people like you or me with assholes in their number, but public safety is their damn job.

        Even in the political process your amendments can be repealed. Laws are determined by people in the era they live in, making them malleable. Rights are set in stone, but the laws enshrining them are not; they’re the wooden temple surrounding the rights. Time after time they need replacement. Even so, a legal document is not holy word to be worshiped.
        And in large part some interpretations (gasp, interpreting a 200yo law) of your 2nd amendment would show more that the armed citizenry was more of a national defence issue than “keeping the govt. in check.” By what I hear your founders didn’t even want a standing army, instead fielding citizen-soldiery, the militia, fielding their personally-owned weapons. Instead you have a professional army now.

        If a government significantly overreaches its bounds, popular discontent and violent overthrow are inevitable, disarmament or no.
        But your country is a representative democracy: the government is something YOU decide on. Too bad the corporate media and the two over-blown parties make your choices far narrower than would be expected of a country that large.
        Any de jure 2-party country becomes an alternating one-party state. Opposition and govt. change seats over and over again.

        But still, are you so convinced that banning a class of arms that did not exist before 60 years ago is going to create a domino effect that completely unravels your constitution?

        • Chant says:

          “… If you’re capable of handling the weapon responsibly, and have good reasons for it, you’ll get it. And this deals with modern military-style arms. I’m sure older-style long-arms are MUCH easier to get. And as they’re less optimized for the purpose of killing as modern arms are, they won’t be as destructive in the wrong hands.”

          This part of your statement shows you have no clue as to the design and purpose between military arms and the so-called older long arms (that you claim are less destructive). Obviously, you don’t know what you are talking about in this case.

          The fact that you can’t seem to comprehend the need for the 2nd Amendment, and the need for the citizens to be able to take back control of a government that has become oppressive… tells me you haven’t learned a damn thing from history either.

          • Lawrence says:

            “Further with the fool with the tool argument, wouldn’t making the process of getting modern military arms more difficult be beneficial?”

            Yes – and its called the National Firearms Act of 1934(!!).

            Maybe you should try researching a topic and acquainting yourself with some basic factual knowledge about the lay of the land before trying to argue an empty case.

          • Mr. European says:

            Less destructive in terms of energy put out? Depends on the make and model. Less destructive in terms of more optimized delivery of said energy? Definitely.
            A military weapon produced 100 years ago is not as effective at the art of killing as a weapon produced 50 years ago or today. Of course full-powered rifles of old could kill at a mile, but this required aim and the fire rate was slow. Even a mad minute required more skill than emptying 30rd mags would today.

            Take a Winchester or a Mauser, their fire rates alone are less than semi-auto assault rifle derivatives’.
            By design a Winchester can’t use modern military rounds (spitzer bullets), unless you use the Russian Winchester…
            Older rifles and handguns also have less magazine capacity, so indiscriminate spraying won’t be a viable tactic for anyone willing to turn those guns against someone. So for mass shootings this would be ineffective when compared to modern pistols or rifles/carbines.

            If arms are needed to keep government in check, then why does America have laws forbidding insurrection? Have you not put down rebellions during your history? Or were they not attempts by self-proclaimed patriots trying to steer the govt. back in its right course?

            “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.”
            That first half seems to be ignored as a rule, isn’t it? And the entire amendment taken out of its context.
            What I read here is the requirement for an armed citizen-soldiery, and with information that the US didn’t want to maintain standing armies, this would mean using the militia as the sole form of territorial defence in peace time.
            “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”

            And even if you take the stance “Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” Let me remind you you have a standing army. The best equipped this planet has ever seen. A professional army is a permanently standing army. A conscript army is one of reserves called up in times of war or emergency. But you abandoned this because it was politically inconvenient and conscripts were more willing to question your leaders.
            Since professionals by rule obey their paymasters, you’d have no chance in hell if they’d ever be turned against you, for whatever reason.

        • Sal Palma says:

          Mr. European, I won’t bother discussing the Constitution with you since it is unlikely that you have any regard for it. It is equally probable that you’ve never had to defend it. In the United States, more so than any other place in the world, people are free to make choices with that liberty comes individual accountability. Rationalizing our choices to anyone is not required. Not caring about what others think has been a defining characteristic of Americans since inception. To put it bluntly, we could care less about what’s done in Europe but you rest assured that should your chestnuts need to be pulled out of the fire Americans will rise to the occasion.
          In our country, the free market works like the electoral process. Consumer demand is a vote for the demanded goods and services. We do not ration and we do not ban consumer choice. If you are in Europe, mind your own business. There are a great many things that you need to deal with there. If you are in the U.S. keep in mind that we do not ban exits. America’s doors swing both ways.

          • Mr. European says:

            “Not caring about what others think has been a defining characteristic of Americans”
            You don’t say…

            Consumer demand is a vote for the demanded goods and services.
            Ironic that you have far more choices for consumer products than you do with your vote.
            Demand a third party. And a fourth. A fifth. Even a sixth.
            A two-party system can only work so long before it grinds to a screeching halt. It’s already happening to you: two parties diametrically opposed, but both with similar wings of moderates and corporates.
            If you manage more independents or small parties into your legislature, it would represent the will of the people better than two opposing umbrella parties.

            Of course this comes from a citizen whose legislature is formed of ten parties, with three to seven in every government (one party always by default even though they get ten seats or less grumble grumble), so take it as you will.

            And we do have plenty of things to do and fix here. God Almighty, do we have things to do…
            And I comment on those in their context.
            Now I am here, and I give observations and opinions according to the context.

    • Brian says:

      You are not welcome to debate here on your brutal negligence! You are a pure example why Obama was elected in the first place. You are so naive and obviously UN educated. Unfortunately like the majority of our citizens. I wish your parents raised you better to be more informed or educated. You fall into the exact majority that is ruining this country and will ultimately destroy everything this country fought to stand for. You are a pile of S**T!!!!!!!!!! And it truly kills me to know people like you even have the right to be part of a free site to voice your ignorance!!! I hope you all the worst in life!!! Because you don’t deserve to call yourself an American.

      • SSD says:

        Come on now, that is way over the top Brian. You are better than this.

      • Mr. European says:

        I’m going to print and frame this.
        Is my screen name that misleading? Should I use a ring of stars as an avatar?

        Dishing out personal insults is the clearest sign that someone doesn’t know how to respond to another’s points.

        • SSD says:

          Ok, at this point, you are bordering on troll behavior. If I tell a commenter to back off you don’t come in on m y heels and taunt him more. Poor form.

          Dial it back a bit across the board. You bring an interesting perspective regarding alternative political parties but our system of government is different from yours. While I appreciate that Finland is a survivor, perhaps you should turn that rapier sharp analytical wit around and take a look at your own country.

          Like it or not, the truth of the matter is that you are not an American and your opinion has zero impact on what happens in this country.

  3. Major Mike says:

    Every single manufacturer of firearms, ammunition and accessories should stop all sales to public agencies (Federal and state) of any and all firearms, ammunition and accessories prohibited by unconstitutional laws.

    No so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons” or so-called “high capacity” magazines to NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA and so on.

    No evil hollow points to NJ.

    And nothing to the US Government if our historic President, Barack Hussein Obama, gets his so-called”AWB”.

    Unlike 1968 when the gun industry threw gun owners under the bus to end competition from imported surplus firearms and ammo.

    Without civilian sales, they will wither.

    • veteran says:

      That truly requires one to put their money where their heart and mouth are… I would be extremely proud of any company that would follow suit on your proposal. They would have my business for life!

  4. james says:

    Mr European… if you do not wish to stand up and fight for the freedoms that this country was founded on… I would recommend you stay in Europe! But we will not come and bail you out… good luck!

    The President of the United States of America just swore to uphold the Constitution and if he chooses to use his executive powers to alter that for which he is sworn to behold… he shall be tried and convicted of treason!

    Just one of many concerned citizens

    • Mr. European says:

      “if you do not wish to stand up and fight for the freedoms that this country was founded on”
      Not a citizen. If I were I would to the best of my capability as one.

      But if you’d ask me whether I’d go against my government if I disagreed with it (and I disagree plenty)… I wouldn’t. I’m honor-bound not to. As long as it’s the legal and right government of the people.
      If it’s not, I’d be honor-bound to restore the legal govt. of the people.
      And in normal life I do what any other citizen of society does: I live my life and vote according to my conscience. The good thing about having a parliament: one party cannot gain dominance over the rest of the legislature.

      Mr. James. You never bailed my people out. You provided minor aid in materiel and a few volunteers, but you never bailed us out. We stood alone for one war, then fought by your enemy’s side against ours for another. On the third we went against our former brothers in arms. And afterward we didn’t even get Marshall Aid, but look where we stand now!
      So you can spout the line “we bailed out Europe” until the earth stops spinning, but it won’t change our page of history.

      If these crumbs of information are insufficient for you to research, they point to Finland.

      • Monty says:

        Ah, Finland–a country that allied with the Nazi’s in WW II. But that comment is shallow, baiting and I’m not from that country. This last statement applies to your comments as well.

        • Lawrence says:

          I have a lot of good friends in Finland – and from my experience, most of them are more switched on than Mr. E. 😉

        • Mr. European says:

          Shallow and baiting? For those who don’t know the context.
          But if only one thing could be said about that: we were the only axis-allied country that didn’t get completely screwed over in the aftermath.

    • A MOM says:

      James, gun regulations do not go against the 2nd amendment. Stop allowing profiteers to tell you what it means. If the president said “no one will ever be allowed to have a gun again, or in the future.” then you’d have a legitimate leg to stand on, but seeing how that is NOT the case…..stop your pontificating.

      • SSD says:

        “Shelley” – While I’m a Dad, I don’t feel the need to call myself Dad in order to take some imaginary moral high ground. I also don’t use a BS email address. Both of your actions tell me that you are neither “Shelley” nor a mom and are more than likely that web-based character called a troll. Good Bye…

  5. Brandon says:

    I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the NSSF is encouraging people to attend a gun show that has banned AR abs AK type rifles. Although the disapprove with the decision of the show, they are still encouraging people to attend despite this.

  6. Mr. American says:

    Please realize the argument being made by Mr. European is based on three tenants.

    1) America has a professional standing army, thus a well regulated militia (which he classifies as a group of armed citizens) is not required to provide provide the citizenry protection which diminishes the need of the 2nd amendment.

    2) Given the first tenant “Modern” weaponry has evolved passed being a useful tool for the citizenry to wield because the intent and purpose of the design of said weapon’s destructive force do not justify the acceptable level of force needed to intercept today’s (as in the society and laws which we govern and rely upon as if they are an enduring constant) threats to the population.

    3) “Rights” in a stable society will continue in perpetuity.

    The explanation to the flaws in this logic must take these tenants into consideration because the element of the American society whom does not value the right to arms ownership by the population continuously fails to recognize the following truths and will rationalize away this level of objectivity.

    America has a professional standing military which consists of its citizenry, thus the right to bear arms applies to them as well independent of their affiliation with their respective branch. This individualism is the pretext in which the 2nd amendment was drafted and the protections afforded are only maintained by the individual in which they as individuals collectively comprise society and its stability. One must understand that a well regulated militia begins with the individual as a resultant for the need for personal protection from any threat and the presence of a professional army does not diminish this need by the individual to protect themselves.

    Secondly, the need for a citizenry to possess and maintain weaponry based on classification must be the lowest common denominator in which an opposing force can be met with an equal deterrent with the opposing force’s armorment i.g. the weapon predominantly used currently is the center fire rifle…the caliber is or size of the “round” is irrespective and obviates the argument because the opposing force must be met with the capability of equal opposition otherwise. If an oppressive government does decide to impose its will, then weapons capable of countering that regime are justified. Therefore the behaviors and tools needed to achieve a capable deterrent are justified as well…these behaviors and tools are passed from one generation to the next indicating a culture has been continuously present throughout the development of the American experiment. This concept is no different than other “modern societies” which largely existed prior to the advent of firearms…instead they used bronze, then iron, and steel in the form of swords, spears, lances etc…these behaviors (fighting) and tools (weapons) can only produce a stable society if equally held by all of the citizenry. Only when the founding fathers realize this, did levels of serfdom begin to recede from the modern world. This truth is witnessed throughout the world today in country’s where the society was not allowed to possess weapons through out the development of their respective cultures….major differences in class, culture, wealth exist…there is not one example of anything different in the history of our world’s societies that does not follow this trend.

    Lastly, once a society stabilizes the citizenry become significantly invested in their own ability to maintain there lifestyle, social standing and comfort of living which provides them the false belief that their current rights will endure as long as concessions to those rights can be seceded from them in the name of protections afford by the state…this usurping of power is gained by control…and a key element this control is that it is self propagating by fear an the inexperience of generations removed from the original task that initially afforded them their rights in the first place. This has happened several times in the past 100 years, and it is cliche but only because of the obviousness associated with the rise of Marxism in Russia, Fascism in Germany/Europe and Communism in China, and be seen in the current wave of radical Islam in Africa and the South Pacific all of these examples have resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of lives… Two very central variables occur in each of these occurrences: the advancing group is acting in behalf of the population in order to protect the mal-perceived oppressed through the introduction of fear and promises of fairness and the removal of weapons that would otherwise provide resistance to the oppressing cause. Thus “rights” are INALIENABLE…not enduring because they must be DEFENDED….with what? TOOLS equal to the armorment of the opposing force!

    Often the provision of a well defined argument through logical deduction is not observed by the someone of the countering view, not because they are unintelligent, but because they are unwilling to reconcile that their rationalizations are literally wrong!

  7. A MOM says:

    Imagine that a guy who sells guns writes this article….how totally unsurprising, yet the yahoos will share it all over the place thinking they are making an actual point. What kind of fool thinks a bigger gun as the one he poses with is anything more than overcompensating for the something that doesn’t feel as though it measures up.