You know, I've been thinking about it, and banning assault rifles is a stupid idea.
After all, the point has been made that if guns — any type of guns — are illegal, only criminals will have them.
And since everywhere I go I am confronted by packs of criminals with assault rifles, I can't believe the government would be so stupid to try to ban them from God-loving, law-abiding folks like myself. I mean, really, President Obama, how can I be expected to defend myself from the roving bands of armed marauders who roam the border of Greene and Fayette counties if I don't have my military-style M4 assault rifle with me? (And, since there're always more than seven of them, I can't be expected to fend them off with anything less than a high capacity magazine.)
And while it's bad enough that they're talking about banning semi-automatic assault weapons, what really chaps my hide is the fact that it's illegal in some states to own a flamethrower! I mean, seriously, if military-style flamethrowers are illegal, only criminals will have military-style flamethrowers! And I don't know about you, but I'm tired of not being able to defend my house and home from criminals capable of launching controlled streams of fire.
And if those nambly pambly liberals get their panties in a bunch, I'll just remind them of this simple little axiom: Flamethrowers don't light people on fire. People do.
(Of course, if the criminals start using flamethrowers, I'll probably need to look into buying a bazooka, or at least some Sarin gas ... those better not be illegal, because that'll mean only criminals will have them.)
So while we have to keep assault rifles legal because otherwise how can we be expected to protect ourselves, remember that the real concern is that this talk of an assault rifle ban is just the beginning.
If they can ban military-style assault rifles designed for mass killing in a short amount of time, what's next? Where do you draw the line? How long before Comrade Obama is coming for all our guns?!
It's a slippery slope, my friends. A very sliiiippery slope.
And it's exactly why we need to fight back against Ayatolla-Obama's war on guns — by reversing the ban on civilians owning tanks.
I'm tired of not being able to defend myself by parking an M1 Abrams in my driveway. Sure, the thing is designed for modern armored ground warfare and not home defense, but I don't want some pinko government bureaucrat infringing on my God-given 2nd Amendment rights, you hear me? The Founding Fathers were expecting open warfare with an invading army and saw the need for average citizens to need to be a part of that war — which is just like today — so they'd clearly be on board with this idea.
Plus, I really want to see the look on the face of the next guy that tries to break into my house when I bring 62 metric tons of American ingenuity to the game. He'll have an assault rifle with him — obviously — but I'll have a 105 mm rifled tank gun that fires anti-personnel rounds, and three machine guns: a .50 cal, a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun and a 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun.
Now, some will say owning a tank is a bit overkill, but I don't care. Frankly, I'd just feel safer knowing I could level every single home on my block with the lethal stopping power designed for open combat. If I'm being completely honest, I'm tired of not treating our homes and places of work like battlefields. Hell, if we just gave everybody a tank, we'd all be a lot safer.
Now, granted, no one has ever broken into my house that I've needed to engage in a lengthy firefight with, and, because we live in a well-functioning, civilized society not on the brink of total collapse, I don't know anyone who's ever needed to be armed with military weapons capable of defending against multiple attackers — but still, I just know that if we let Barry Oh get his hands on our battle tanks, he'll be taking every last one of our guns.
And then, you guessed it, only criminals will have armored tanks.
Plus, think about it: If the government can ban tanks, where do you draw the line? If they can take away my tank, how long before they come for your F-150, huh? I mean, that's the logical conclusion, isn't it? And, and — and! — let's talk about this other slippery slope that The Chosen One is dragging us down: if it's illegal to drive drunk, how long before Nobama makes it illegal to drive at all!!!
Sure, they may try to convince us that it's OK that we have laws against dangerous driving — speeding, drinking and driving, driving on the sidewalk, ignoring stop lights — but it's only a matter of time before those so-called “common-sense” laws lead to you having to bike to work. Think about it! Why does Saddam Hussein Obama want to ban driving?!
If we can outlaw something like drunk driving — which is clearly dangerous, kills more people than regular driving and offers nothing of value to society — then it's only a matter of time before all driving is illegal.
This is the argument against banning assault rifles.
Makes perfect sense to me.
If you'd like to take his keyboard from his cold, well-moisturized hands, Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at email@example.com.