For my liberal, non firearms savvy readers here is a simple primer:
In the USA, marketing techniques are used to sell firearms, much like the same marketing ploys are used to used to sell fleece sweaters or underarm deodorant. There is a huge aftermarket business in add-ons for firearms. For the average user, these add-ons serve as much to make the rifle "look better" as to provide useful functions that the owner will realistically need. Interestingly, appearance seems to be as important to firearms owners as functionality.
A common buzzword used as a marketing tool in the firearms industry is "Tactical". You, as a liberal can exchange the word "cool" for "tactical" when related to firearms marketing, and you pretty much have it. The word tactical appears on everything from the firearms themselves, to belts, gloves, glasses, and all sorts of bolt on accessories. The rifle pictured above is equipped to help the shooter aquire targets via IR and laser systems, and also to "look good" like a car decked out with bling-bling wheels.
I believe that marketing the Saddam Rifle would be a poor business decision for a company looking to sell guns in the US. There are several reasons American consumers would not want to buy a clone of the rifle below.
- It was not designed by Eugene Stoner
- It is hard to find ACOG and Aimpoint sights in gold
- Massad Ayoob does not own one
- It would look "Queer" in the gun rack of the '84 Chevy above the Mossberg 500
Gun Nut Vanity Meets a Thick Iraqi Wallet (Actually a cheap gun, but he had cases of them).
5 comments:
Conservatives are very LIBERAL with guns. They want anyone to get one.
Liberals are very CONSERVATIVE with guns. They don't want anyone to have one.
So which are you? Liberal (meaning a conservative) or Conservative (a liberal)?
Politically speaking, I am Liberal with Libertarian leanings. From a firearms standpoint, I believe that some citizens should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not everyone. From talking to Conservative gun owners, I have found that when pressed, they will admit that young children, violent felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own firearms.
Since I got my concealed carry permit and started packin', I have found that the issues on gun ownership are not black and white, or split down party lines. In fact, my father, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton man now carries as well.
My philosophy going into the concealed carry experiment was that only Women should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. I guess you could call that Liberal. As a man who had the right to carry a gun granted by the US Constitution and the State of Tennessee, I decided to exercise my right and blog the results.
"As a man who had the right to carry a gun granted by the US Constitution and the State of Tennessee, I decided to exercise my right and blog the results."
See now, right there is where the major divide in this country comes from. Are your rights granted to you by the government, or do they, as listed in the constitution, inalienable i.e. they simply exist?
You *have* the right to free speech, it's not granted to you by anybody or anything. It's *enumerated* in the constitution to identify and protect it.
Something else to remember about the constitution as well is that it's a document that constricts federal powers, not one that enables citizen's rights.
You have the right to posess all the weaponry you want until you violate someone else's rights with them. Until then, well, innocent until proven guilty. Hell on victims, but the only way to be absolutely fair because you *can't* in good conscience remove an inalienable right from someone just because they "might" do something. When they do something, react. It's a reactionary system. And hopefully in the case of violent felons they don't survive their initial felonious contact....
In theory, everyone has the right to bear arms. In reality, that right only exits on the high seas, as the US Constitution is of limited jurisdiction. When I lived in Europe, the right to bear arms, and the rights to prevent search and seizure, etc. were not legally available to me. As I did not fall under the Jurisdiction of the US Constitution, lethal self defense was not available to me. Were I to move to China, the rights to the above and the right to free speech would be gone. In the US, the Federal, State and Local Governments deny these rights at will to the citizens on a whim. Remember New Orleans. Thus the second amendment rights "guaranteed" to me are not really inalienable, but are in fact ignored on a regular basis, by both major political parties at all levels of Government.
If you claim that you have the right to something, but are not free to exercise that right at any time, even if you have been granted the right in the Constitution then one of two things is happening: Either you are mis-interpreting the US Constitution, or you are being forced to comply with an Unconstitutional law, meaning the courts misinterpreted the US Constitution.
Firearms restrictions are the result of a problem of combining evil, stupid or depressed (or any combination of the above) people with firearms. To use a silly metaphor, I don't see Jello shot restrictions going into effect. If 30,242 people died as a result of Jello Shots through suicide, accidental deaths and murder on an annual basis, it might be a different story. You might have to impinge on the pursuit of happiness that people seek through Jello Shots, as cruel as it sounds. Plus, it would be easier to limit access or completely restrict Jello shots as we cannot humanely stop depression, evil and stupidity.
You are right, it is a reactionary system, and the current laws reflect that there has been a long history of criminal misuse of firearms by firearms owners. Had the misuse of firearms by firearms owners never occurred, you would be able to pick up a full auto Bushmaster Carbon 15 Model 4 Carbine at Ace Hardware and take it right home without filling out paperwork. Sadly, since firearms owners have not been able to police themselves, the Govt. had to step in.
Post a Comment