State Rep. Brian BeGole, a former Shiawassee County sheriff, said in a statement issued Tuesday that thousands of people in Michigan own an AR-15.

Some days, those who would command govern represent us just make it too easy for, among other things, finding “post fodder.”

In the shadow of Michael William Nash’s demonstration of his 2nd Amendment rights on Saturday, according to The News…

Twelve Michigan House Republicans have sponsored a bill this month to the name the AR-15 “the official rifle of this state,” drawing criticism from opponents who labeled the proposal unserious and inappropriate.

For those who don’t know, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Bear that in mind when reading the following.

State Rep. Brian BeGole, R-Antrim Township, a former Shiawassee County sheriff, was the primary backer of the AR-15 measure and said in a statement issued Tuesday that thousands of people in Michigan own an AR-15. […] “This distinction recognizes these law-abiding gun owners who are often vilified just for having a firearm as a hobbyist or to keep their homes and families safe," BeGole said.

That’s some hobby. Keep their homes and families safe. Safe from the government BeGole has represented most of his life, according to the oft-debated 2nd Amendment.

However, Ryan Bates, director of End Gun Violence Michigan, said BeGole’s bill was about “worshiping the rifle that is the preferred weapon of mass shooters.” […] Bates noted that on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, a rapid-fire gun accessory that was used in a mass shooting at a music festival Las Vegas in 2017.

“That shooter used 23 AR-style rifles modified with bump stocks to kill 58 people and injure nearly 500 in mere minutes,” Bates said. “We now live in a world where any deranged person can turn an AR-style rifle into a machine gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds per minute, a level of firepower that quite simply overwhelms law enforcement.”

We all know that rabbit and pheasant can get pretty mean. And who doesn’t like their venison pre-ground? To quote my favorite philosopher and thinker, myself…

It’s forever High Noon in this nation of cowboys.

Ah, almost forgot! Use it everyday!

Alt link for your convenience via archive.is

If you can’t see the crazy person on the bus, it’s you.
[email protected] ☆ [email protected] ☆ [email protected]

  • @afraid_of_zombiesEnglish
    -3•5 months ago

    I am way too privileged to tell you how to protect yourself. With that said you can look at it two ways

    1. Read what Patrick Henry said about it. The second amendment was to stop revolts and at the same time provide a non-federal way to have a military. Which was required because he noted that blacks who served in the revolutionary war were made free afterwards. The goal was to keep the black population enslaved. You can also read federalist paper 46 and understand that a well regulated militia is not a dude with a gun. It means an organized fighting force.

    2. The second way you can go about it is work backwards. States wanted a legal way to raise their own armies in an emergency. Well what kinda emergency were they planning for? You don’t need a guy with a musket to deal with a flood. The emergencies we are told are revolts. Who is going to revolt the white population non-slaves or the black slave population?

    The 2nd amendment existed to allow slave patrols to function. Even people who argued it was for a national guard type thing weren’t thinking of random people with guns.

    • @FireTowerEnglish
      2•5 months ago
      1. Justice Story had a better take with consideration of the historical roots of the recognition of the right:

      The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

      1. There’s other types of emergencies that were very pressing at the time. Namely attacks from the Iroquois Confederacy and the Crown of England (once the War of 1812 broke), just to limit it to the early republic period.

      This 1619 type revisionism not only portrays the period in an inaccurate shade but diminishes the accomplishments of men, like Peter Salem, and ignores facts agreed upon universally by academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.

      • @afraid_of_zombiesEnglish
        -2•5 months ago

        academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.

        By men you mean males and what was the color of their skin?

        • @FireTowerEnglish
          1•5 months ago

          By men you mean males

          Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.

          and what was the color of their skin?

          Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.

          • @afraid_of_zombiesEnglish
            -2•5 months ago

            Lot of effort to not say white males for slave patrols.