Can Our Society Implement a De-Escalation of Force? Part Three

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

Can Our Society Implement a De-Escalation of Force? Part Three

By CompanyFirstSergeant

Link to Part One: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189947

Link to Part Two: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189973

Reader please note: the following topics were promised for Part Three, but will appear in Part Four:

* Implications for Personal Self Defense
* The Militarization of Police
* Summary and Suggestions


Part Three – Debunking Myths

Anti: “If we ban future sales of (insert model here) - currently owned weapons will eventually wear out and/or rust away, thereby leaving our cultural landscape clean of weapons.”

With modern technology, they most certainly will not.

A company in Arizona will, for about 300 to 500 dollars, apply a coating on a firearm that will enable it to pass what is known as a ‘Thousand Hour Salt Spray Test.”

In other words, a firearm with this technology could be carried under the harshest environmental conditions possible, for forty-hour work-weeks, be cleaned and oiled once every six months… and last forever.


Pro: “The Bushmaster AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.”

If you are talking about compliance with the Technical Data Package, no, it’s not. If you are talking about a Bushmaster lasting as long as a Colt under battlefield conditions, again, no.

If you are talking about functionality, about rate of fire, about compatibility with military ammunition and magazines…. if a military service member would pick up a Bushmaster and spend a day at the range…

…it most certainly is.

Also note, the Colt AR-15 is TDP compliant/military grade right out of the box. It just does not have the select fire option.

Besides, the differences between the Bushmaster and the Colt are very minor technical details, mostly having to do with the quality of the bolt carrier.


Anti: “The AR-15 should be banned.”

Only a small part of it can be banned. Only a relatively small part of the AR-15 is legally considered to be a firearm. This is the part that contains the trigger, the hammer and has the serial number printed on the side.

This part is known as the ‘lower receiver.’ The entire remainder of the firearm – the upper receiver, the buttstock, forward handguards, barrel, gas system and bolt carrier group – most of the gun - is considered parts.

And…. The lower receiver can be obtained as a separate component, and stored – often in quantity – in anticipation of an assault weapons ban. The parts listed above can be purchased after the ban, for a completely legal rifle.

Besides, how do you effectively ban something whose name can be changed from AR-15 to Sporter Rifle, and whose illegal features can be removed with a screwdriver or a wrench?


Pro: “I have hunting rifles that are semi-automatic and can deliver the same rate of fire.”

Do they have 30-round magazines?


Anti: “The Second Amendment is a collective right, and anyway, it should be repealed.”

Despite the fact that this is thrown out there a lot, it does not really matter.

Say for a moment, the Second Amendment was actually set to expire – like the assault weapons ban was - right here and right now. Municipalities would need to enact entirely new legislation to remove the right to bear arms – via the democratic process. Politicians would need to appeal to constituent’s wishes – or lose their careers.

There are municipalities today which have very little to no respect for the Second Amendment, such as New York City and New Jersey. Other states – most of them, actually - have a deep abiding respect for it.

What they really have, is a respect for an individual right to self-defense that transcends even the Constitution.

Repeal of the Second Amendment would most likely result in a political landscape very much like it already is today.


Pro: “The Second Amendment enables me to participate in an overthrow of government.”

What the Second Amendment does is to enable a private citizen to join forces with a legitimate government in order to repel invaders and suppress insurrection. In America, we overthrow government by voting.


Anti: “After banning them, we should confiscate them.”

You want to go first?

Are you willing to send a law enforcement officer, acting on your behalf, through the door into a home known to have weapons unless they absolutely have to?

Are you willing to risk the lives of innocent men, women and children who have done absolutely nothing wrong - until the law you advocated for - retroactively declared the gun owner in the family a criminal?

Even if the gun owner and his family are not home, are you advocating giving the government more power to destroy a man’s property and with it his family’s sense of security?


Pro: “What about the zombie apocalypse?”

Following a natural disaster, victims are proven to be very responsive to competent authority. Following Katrina, a lack of competent authority was the problem. Following Sandy, a combination of civilian volunteers, city, state and federal authorities hit the ground running and minimized chaos.

If you are worried about a zombie apocalypse, keep some phone numbers around for the Occupy movement. They did a phenomenal job after Sandy.

You can volunteer to hand out granola bars and water bottles. Leave your AR-15 home.


To be continued...