Thoughts on weapons and disarmament

Now and then, gun owners are accused of being arrogant, stupid, and dangerous. They are even attacked for thinking that they are in the right. We are, in the eyes of many, “laughable” because we (paraphrasing Uncle Joe (Biden)) think that an AR-15 can stand up to an F-15.

Such accusations normally come from people who want the US Constitution to take away the right to keep and bear arms. Just like they do not understand that is one (of many) rights that are not created by the US Constitution, but simply protected by that document, they do not understand other basic facts.

These hoplophobes (gun fearers) and hoploclasts (gun haters) frequently lament, “why do people need weapons of war in their homes?” This is, apparently, supposed to prove both how stupid gunowners are, and how those gunowners do not “properly” understand what that right applies to. Of course, they also usually fail to understand the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 or M-4, just as they do not understand that a clip is not the same as a magazine.

But what about that question? How can we answer it easily, in nice short words and sentences? Here is one idea of what to say in a way that might convince even a hoploclast:

George Takei (Star Trek Original Series actor, well-known flaming liberal/Woke celebrity) recently pointed out that there are some 15 million AR15s in the US, and that if every one of them were shipped off to Ukraine and given to their citizens, they could easily defeat the Russian invasion.

You know what, my friend? I completely agree with him. Do you? Good.

Ironically, he just proved the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It exists for a sole reason. A well-regulated (meaning trained and proficient) militia (a group of civilians ready to defend themselves and their communities) being necessary to the security of a free state (having civilians ready to defend the community both for stability ((internal threats)) and security ((external threats)) ), the right (people can do this fundamentally of their own ability, not because of permission or assistance from the government) of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry / be prepared to use) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed (interfered with).

Now, my friend. Tell me why that is laughable.

Maybe that bit of argument might win some from their fear and hatred of weapons, even “weapons of war.” It’s worth a try.

But we have to remember that it is not “public safety” or “preventing suicide” or “disarming criminals” that is the primary reason so many people (especially politicians, bureaucrats, and cops) want to disarm us. Uncle Joe again being a classic case, together with such wonderful folks as LBJ, RMN, FDR, and BHO.

This image identifies the problem.

Resistance, of course, is more than just going to court over something, or staging protest marches, sit-ins, and writing letters to the editor or your elected officials. It requires, at a minimum, something to back it up. A way of dealing with those F-16s and M1A1s and other such nasty things (when in the wrong hands).

The key is, of course, critical thinking. Thinking inspired by experience, knowledge, and sharing of ideas and information. (Remembering, for example, that iron sharpens iron.) It is the opposite of what we see all too often: unthinking obedience to government enactments. And unthinking rebellion against those enactments.

Which brings us to a final thought for this commentary.

In 1775, muskets were weapons of war and also used by civilians to defend themselves, hunt, and more. In 1861, revolvers and better rifles and muskets were weapons of war and still used, more than ever, by civilians at home and work and in the field. The same thing was true in 1917 (M1903 Springfield Rifle and M1911 Pistol) and 1941 (M1 Garand, Thompson submachine gun, etc.). (Automatic weapons were effectively prohibited for private ownership starting in 1934, but were (and are) still useful for civilians. The 1986 expanded prohibition just added insult to injury.)  Throughout this period, cannon (both on ships and on dry land) were considered “weapons of war” and yet used by civilians.  (And still are, today, among other things, for avalanche control.)

We submit that laws that mandate “demilitarizing” of many weapons, and prohibit the arming of civilian ships, airplanes, and vehicles, and many other “public safety” matters are obviously and directly a violation of the US Constitution, and our God-given (not government-given) rights.

So, now, please consider drones. Especially flying drones. We read that is is illegal for non-military personnel in the United States to operate a drone equipped with “a dangerous weapon.” (Section 363 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. § 44802). At least without FAA permission. Not only that, shooting down a drone is a federal crime (18 U.S.C. § 32, destruction of aircraft).

Again, we submit that the drone prohibition is clearly unconstitutional. And, though not a direct violation of the 2^nd Amendment, to make shooting down a drone automatically illegal is a clear denial of your right to defend yourself. And to protect your privacy, for that matter.

Clearly, even many libertarians may find this a bit hard to swallow. If you, dear reader, are one, please tell us why. And how we are wrong.

As with any weapon, what should be prohibited (as evil) is using the weapon for the wrong reason: to aggress against someone, to use to facilitate committing a crime, to aid in stealing or intimidating/forcing someone to do something against their will. (In other words, what governments around the world do on a daily, routine basis.) But the same weapon that can be used for such things is also capable of being used to defend ourselves and others, including our life, liberty, and possessions.

READ MORE

Source: https://freedombunker.com/2026/09/22/thoughts-on-weapons-and-disarmament/