Sound nuts ? As you know, the DJ team is NOT of the woke/PC crowd and pursues real world solutions. While we don’t go out of our way to be offensive, we don’t shy away from controversy either (and you’ll NEVER find our organization a part of the ‘cancel culture’ genre).
I received the following email from one of our field agents yesterday (among all the ‘mass shooting’ ruckus).
“I think it’s quite clear at this point that a muslim ban is in order. A ban on those of islamic faith and any and all of those practicing islam. Islam is in a disproportionate number of violent killings and violence and we need to get it off our streets. Thoughts and prayers aren’t enough at this point; we need action and commons sense laws.
There are plenty of GOOD religions out there; why would anyone NEED to practice islam ? No one NEEDS a religion that’s violent, and there’s been untold carnage. We just can’t allow this ‘religion of war’ to be out on the streets anymore. Especially ‘high cap’ muslims; those in large families with lots of children. I guess we could register muslims; perhaps with a 200 dollar tax on each muslim and after the bureau of religion reviews it with a tax stamp they could be allowed to practice, so long as they inform the bureau when they leave the state.
When you think about it, when the bad guys propose these stupid AWBs and other infringements on the 2A, they’re using EXACTLY the same argument I just made. And it has equal constitutional validity.”
Of course, he’s right–and cleverly using the parallel mindless sound byte argument about so-called “assault” or “military style” rifles or “weapons of war” that some would-be miscreants parrot. (the terms came about when some of their spin teams came across the fact that an ‘assault rifle’ is usually defined having characteristics that none of the civilian/Law Enforcement AR-15 M4s have).
When you hear these buzzwords, our team suggests you discount anything further from that particular source; they have no idea what they’re talking about (the D-J team does have security consultants who are former military operatives and instructors IN defensive firearms skills). When rhetoric like this is used, the perpetrator has no experience with the device in question nor any firsthand experience or knowledge on the topic–the idea being use rhetoric like a chant to buffalo people from looking into the issue themselves. Rhetoric over rational thought.
Obviously, the D-J team believes in our constitution and in the free (peaceful) practice of religion or whatever one uses to find the higher being of ones’ understanding. The point is the legislation aimed at truncating citizens’ 2A rights is EXACTLY like a person being required to register to go to church, have a background check to type these very words, or having to pay a tax to practice a particular form of religion. Moreover, the increasing use of firearms legislation has been counterproductive in doing anything to prevent crime; it only punishes the ‘good guys’ (and encumbers them from defending themselves). You’re attempting to regulate a tool rather than a behavior (killing people is assuredly illegal already); the net result is an encumbrance toward trained citizens defending themselves with the proper tool (which is an individual choice that only THAT individual can make knowing his particular circumstances and capabilities). Of course, statists need to create a perennial problem so they can step in and ‘save the day’ so it’s not surprising that they go down this path of exacerbating the situation.
The intent behind the 2A is one of relative parity; the citizenry is as well armed as a potential captor and this acts as a deterrent to tyranny (while also affirming an individuals’ inherent right of self defense). Throughout most of history, this has largely been true in the US. The right isn’t granted; it’s affirmed BY the 2A (having come from a power greater than man). The 2A is a concrete limitation on government overreach; not a bestowment of rights.
The standard test to use is ‘if the cops get it we do too.’ (in fact, some of our instructors look to what has been effective for LE use in recommending firearms and ammunition–and NONE of our instructors will tell a person they ‘need’ something or other. It comes down to suitability for task which varies individual to individual). Versions of the AR-15 M4 are the most common patrol rifle in use by law enforcement across the nation today and can be extremely effective as a multipurpose tool in a person’s self-defense matrix. To use an analogy, it’s the Pennsylvania Longrifle of the latter 20th century.
So when you hear the standard “common sense” or “why does a person need” or “most Americans favor background checks” (blah blah blah) BS rhetoric be sure and reject out of hand that particular source; they’ve never USED that particular tool in a real bona-fide situation (otherwise they’d not make the inane comments they do).
Here at D-J, we deal in solutions; not in useless manure.
Diatomaceous-Johnson 