Men’s T-shirt – Defend It – AR

Defend It…our freedom depends on it!!! 

Do you know anyone that’s “on the fence” about whether or not a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own an “assault weapon”? Are you yourself against the idea? Let’s grab a nice warm cup of tea and take a dive into what an “assault weapon” actually is, along with some good statistics from our own FBI and the Crime Prevention Research Center. Let’s also take a look at what our founding fathers had to say about this; so we can build a good foundation for our beliefs that are constructed with facts, rather than rely on the poisonous disinformation campaigns that are spoken with a forked tongue, designed to shape our opinions and turn gun owners against each other. Let’s also address some of the common misperceptions surrounding “assault weapons” and AR-15’s.

“AR-15’s are weapons of mass murder…Right?”

I’m so glad you asked this question! According to FBI statistics, in 2018, there were 14,123 murders in the United States. Out of those murders, just 297 were committed with any type of rifle. That’s just over 2% of murders committed with all rifles combined. If we’re talking about a specific rifle, out of the thousands of rifle designs, namely; the AR-15, we can safely assume it’s a tiny fraction of that 2%, since there’s thousands of rifle models and they’re all pooled into that 2%. As to compare with ALL rifles combined, there were about 5 times as many people murdered with knives, and about 3.75 more people murdered with hands, feet, and blunt objects…it seems that people will use any instrument at their disposal to murder, but statistically speaking, rifles aren’t a very popular pick to commit murder…they are very hard to conceal, and concealment is usually a paramount part of a criminals plan. Regardless, murder will always be a societal problem, not a problem with the inanimate objects at their disposal. Murder existed before the invention of firearms.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson

 “Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.”  Crime Prevention Research Center

“But…you don’t need an AR-15 to shoot a deer, so why does anyone need one anyway?”  That sentence right there is one of the most popular sentences in the disinformation brain-washing campaign constructed by the anti-gunners to turn us gun-owners against each other. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it has everything to do with asserting our God given right to own any firearm of our choosing, in order to act as the proper safeguard against a Tyrannical government.  Our whole system of government was set up with checks and balances, so that no entity would have too much power. This is because throughout history, when an individual has too much power, it usually results in millions upon millions of deaths of innocent citizenry…since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The armed populace is the check to a Tyrannical government, it is the last safeguard that defends all of our other human rights…and to function as the proper check to Tyranny, the populace needs to be armed equal to the tool of the Tyranny, which is the standing military.

On another note; the second amendment doesn’t “grant” us the “privilege” to own guns, it simply confirms that our rights are God given and can never be touched by government. Our founders were men who studied global history, and they also never wanted to re-live the conditions they had under the Crown. They knew that if they didn’t specifically recognize our human rights in official government doctrine, as time went on, our human rights would disappear and we would have to relive many of the horrors that they had…since power corrupts men, men are selfish by nature, and all civilizations go through a cycle from freedom to oppression, as noted by the “Tytler Cycle”.

Our forefathers knew that the citizens had to be armed equal to the military to act as an effective check to Tyranny, since standing armies have always been used as the tool for Tyranny. They despised standing armies so much that; they didn’t want a standing army at all…in its place, they required nearly every male citizen to act as the militia…they felt that would be the only way to secure our human rights and freedoms from our future government…for history has shown that governments with standing armies are dangerous to liberty. As time passed, our enemies got bigger and stronger and a standing army was created. Now that we have a standing army, which our forefathers warned us about; it is more important than ever that we are armed just as capable as the standing army. We cannot act as the proper check to Tyranny if the standing army is allowed superior arms, and we are delegated to inferior arms, which is why our founding fathers gave blanket coverage when the second amendment was written. There were no stipulations written, no exceptions…on the contrary; citizens were actually encouraged and required to own the most modern and capable weapons, and to keep sufficient ammunition on hand (Militia Act 1792). There were private citizens that owned canons which were the most powerful weapon in the day, weapons powerful enough to sink war ships. Dynamite could be readily purchased in the hardware store, there were no nation-wide restrictions. Even in the early 1900’s, a citizen could order a fully automatic Browning Submachinegun from a mail-order catalog and it was delivered by train, or they could pick one up at their local hardware store.

As time went on, government began growing, voting to expand its own power, and dictating what citizens could and could not have, and that is still ongoing…it will go on forever until all the guns are banned and we have reached the stage of full-on oppression as noted in the “Tytler Cycle”…unless we can educate our brothers and sisters with the truth, and help them recognize the anti-gun disinformation campaign for what it is…a disinformation campaign meant to divide us gun-owners and cause us to fight amongst ourselves, such that many gun owners will not stand up for certain guns because each person has a different idea of what we should be allowed to own. We lose our strength when that happens, and all of our guns are at risk. When we stand together, armed with the Bill of Rights in one hand and the wisdom of our founding fathers in our hearts, we are unbeatable. Our founding fathers said it’s our God given right and duty to own the most capable weapons.

If we start banning every inanimate object that people use to murder, murder rates will most likely increase, provided the world-wide research conducted by CPRC. People have used vehicles to murder, rocks, sticks, fists, feet, knives…but coincidentally, all of those items have purposeful uses if one uses them as lawfully intended, so let’s retain our freedom to use them by not banning them.

Consider this; since around 5 times as many people in America were murdered with knives as compared to any rifle in 2018, consider living without knives…since they are apparently so much more dangerous and take so many more lives.  It’d be awful tough to make supper for the kids without them, our lives would be pretty miserable. But, the criminals would still have them, just us law-abiding citizens wouldn’t. In all seriousness, in the UK, where handguns are banned, and the other types of guns are so heavily regulated that they just as well be banned, they are actually considering banning points on knives. This is what we can expect if we continue to allow the anti-gunners to ban specific guns and gun parts.

Now that we know that AR-15’s most likely account for less than 1% of the murders in the United States, lets dig into why there’s so much “buzz” surrounding these scary-looking rifles in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Let’s also see what our founding fathers had to say on this matter; the revered men who constructed and signed our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One of the most common opinions we hear about “assault rifles” is that “No citizen should own one.” This belief is faulty on many levels, since the semi-automatic rifles that are readily available to the law-abiding citizenry are not select-fire or full automatic fire, thus they are not military equivalents.  If you want to own an actual select-fire or fully automatic military assault weapon legally, you must obtain a class III license which includes deep background checks, fees, many extra laws surrounding the ownership, and a long waiting list for approval to own a gun that cannot have been manufactured after May of 1986. Expect to pay $16,000 to $35,000 for a big, heavy, cumbersome, outdated gun (that’s had millions of rounds pumped through it and is all worn out), which would otherwise be a $400 gun if there was a larger supply of them, since demand is higher than the dwindling pre-1986 supply.

For most people, it is not an efficient use of their money to own an actual assault rifle capable of burst or fully automatic fire. High class enthusiasts and gun collectors that have a healthy income probably make up the majority of owners of the dwindling amount of registered pre-1986 select-fire or full auto guns left in circulation. For the most part, they are already “banned”, because they are hard to come by, the extra fees and laws dissuade people from owning one, the paperwork and hassle surrounding them, and have been rendered unaffordable to most households due to supply and demand of an ever-dwindling product.

A search on the number of legally registered fully automatic weapons in circulation revealed an estimate of roughly half of a million, but…interestingly, a search for murders committed with registered legal full automatics revealed only 2 murders since 1934 when the National Firearms Act went into effect. This is the highest number we could find. The point is, not many people are going to go through the hassle to get their hands on a registered, legal fully automatic assault rifle and commit a crime with it…the vast majority of crimes committed with fully automatic assault rifles are illegal guns. They are already illegal, therefore we don’t need an “assault weapons” ban. As we all know, we have also banned Meth in this country, but yet it still runs rampant on the streets and is very cheap to purchase. Banning any type of gun is about as effective as banning water…it still exists and the criminals still have them, but the law-abiding citizens are left defenseless, since they are the only ones that obey the law…putting them at a disadvantage against the criminals.

“But, that’s what “AR” stands for, is ‘assault rifle’! Right?”

We would also like to combat the disinformation campaign by explaining what the “AR” in “AR-15” actually stands for; which is “ArmaLite Rifle”, reflecting the company name of the original manufacturer of the weapon…it does not stand for “Assault Rifle”. Although ArmaLite sold the design of the rifle to Colt in 1959, the term “AR-15” has persisted and acts as a catch-all for guns of a similar design to the original.

Wait…if it’s not an “Assault Rifle”, then what is it? The term “modern sporting rifle” was coined to describe today’s popular semiautomatic rifle designs, including the AR-15 and its offspring. These rifles are used by hunters, competitors, law abiding citizens’ seeking solutions to home-defense, target shooters, and more. The central reason these firearms are misunderstood is political disinformation. Though the semiautomatic design used in modern pistols, rifles and shotguns was invented in the late-nineteenth century, the modern sporting rifle has been called a “weapon of war” by those who want to ban them, with the intent of eventually banning all guns for civilian use.

“Assault Rifle” is a rather confusing term in itself, and is all-encompassing. You could use any rifle to “assault” someone or something, that has long been the purpose of guns in general. Many of us have used a rifle to assault a deer to feed our families, has that rifle just become an assault rifle?  Coincidentally, if you assault someone or something with a rock, is that an “assault rock”?  From what we have seen, the actual definitions of “assault rifle” are numerous, very vague, and could encompass any rifle, since the wording often leaves it up to the individuals’ interpretation. Are you willing to ban your own deer rifle because it is used in combat by a specific military somewhere in the world? Keep in mind, modern militaries around the globe still use bolt action rifles in combat to assault their opponents…many snipers use awfully similar or exactly the same rifles that many of us use to take game to feed ourselves. I don’t know about you, but all-encompassing language makes us a little nervous. As we have pointed out, fully automatic weapons are already for the most part “banned”, and even though there’s an estimated half million in circulation, legal registered fully automatic guns have only been used in an estimated 2 murders since 1934.

Since “assault” weapons are already for the most part banned, we have to assume that when the anti-gunners say “assault rifle”, they are actually trying to refer to semi-automatic rifles, with scary looking parts, like hand-grips. When a definition like “assault rifle” isn’t specific, it’s inevitably going to be up to a judge to interpret it…and depending on which way that judge leans politically, that interpretation could be all-encompassing and set a legal precedence, putting the rest of your rifles in your gun cabinet up for forfeit.

“I’m still not convinced…our forefathers never knew guns would evolve into what they are now, like semi-automatics. When they wrote the Bill of Rights, they were only talking about muskets, right?”  Unfortunately, the long-standing campaign of disseminating poisonous disinformation that is meant to categorize gun-owners and cause us to fight amongst ourselves has shaped some of our fellow Piece Keepers’ opinions.  But, if one is of that opinion, then they are against the opinion of our forefathers that signed our Constitution and Bill of Rights that ensured our freedoms. Our founding fathers knew that guns would evolve, they had seen their own guns evolve throughout their lives, just as we have seen our guns evolve, our cars evolve, our clothing evolve…it is universally known that every product evolves and gets better, as long as government allows enough freedom for entrepreneurs to exercise their brains to acquire wealth…or forces their citizens to invent things through acts of Tyranny…in any case, the principle remains the same; physical goods always improve as man seeks ways to make the goods more efficient, wieldy, effective, compact, lightweight, water resistant, etc. That’s why we have automobiles today to drive on land, and airplanes to fly across the ocean…it’s slightly faster and more convenient than horses and ships. Our founding fathers were no dummies, they knew weapons would continue to evolve, they had experienced it themselves. On the contrary, they were quite brilliant by affirming that it is our God given right to own the best and most modern weapons, so that we could act as a proper check to Tyranny. This is why they didn’t write any exceptions in the second amendment. It is blanket coverage. They knew that if the citizenry were delegated to inferior weapons, liberty could not exist, for the very reason that weapons would evolve.

The only way to act as an effective check to Tyranny, is to be armed equal to the Tyranny. Not only did our forefathers want us to be armed equal to the military to prevent Tyranny, they wanted “US” to BE the military!  Even more, they didn’t just “want” us to be the military, they required “us” to be the military. They did not want a standing army, since standing armies have always been used as a tool for Tyranny by governments. Our founders wanted (and actually required) nearly EVERY able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to carry the most modern weapons and to carry a certain amount of ammunition. Please read the following Militia act of 1792 and the quotes from our beloved founding fathers who signed our Constitution and our Bill of Rights into law, then ask yourself; why is it that government once required us to own the most modern and capable weapons, but now our God Given right to own them is under constant attack? Boy, the times have sure changed! History just repeats itself…if you read history, you can see where we’re headed, into the next phase of the “Tytler Cycle”. We encourage everyone to look up what the Tytler Cycle is.

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enroll every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. Approved May 8^th, 1792

“No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense [sic], — yeomanry, unskillful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!” George Mason, 1787

“I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury, in all matters of fact triable by the law of the land, and not by the laws of nations.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787

“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”

James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”

James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”

George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4, 1783

“The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” James Madison

 “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” James Madison, 1787 addressing the Constitutional Convention on the dangers of a permanent army.

“always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army should be watched with a jealous eye.” Samual Adams 1776

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” Thomas Jefferson

“But…I’m still not convinced!”

We have already determined that fully automatic guns of military equivalent are for the most part banned, and have been used in an estimated 2 murders since 1934…all other murders committed with fully automatic weapons are committed with illegal weapons, thus, we do not need an “assault” weapons ban…so we have to assume that this argument has to do with semi-automatic rifles that have scary looking attachments, like hand grips…not actual fully automatic assault rifles that are used by the military. Like we have mentioned, this is a disinformation campaign, meant to divide us and cause us gun-owners to quarrel amongst ourselves. They already succeeded in banning fully automatic guns for the most part, so now semi-automatic guns are next on their checklist…they need to divide us gunowners and turn us against each other to accomplish this, with disinformation. If they complete an “assault weapons” ban, next it will be bolt action, lever action, pump action, break barrel, until all we’re left with is a stick…but the length of the stick and the sharpness of its tip will be regulated.

If all gun-owners don’t stand together and defend every gun, history dictates that they will ban every type of gun, one at a time. Why? Because even if all guns are banned, there will still be murder…and murder is the ruse of their reasoning. Coincidentally, according to the global research conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center, murder rates actually increase when guns are banned…so, that will give the anti-gunners an infinite amount of fuel to continue their anti-gun campaign. After they ban one type of firearm, the law abiding citizen will be less equipped to defend themselves, thus emboldening the criminals who still possess guns and purchase them readily on the streets, and murder rates will increase…that is why there is so much crime in cities that regulate guns the most, because the law abiding citizen can hardly acquire one…the criminals know this, so they are free to rob, kill, plunder, with minimal risk, since they’re the one with the gun, not the law abiding citizen. The criminal never wants to meet armed resistance, they want an easy victim…if the gun restrictions prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, those laws render all law-abiding citizens easy victims.

“Those that trade their Liberty for the promise of Security shall receive neither.”

Benjamin Franklin

There is always a direct correlation with gun restrictions and crime. The places with the heaviest gun restrictions coincidentally have the most crime. The places that have little to no restrictions have very little crime. If you’re a criminal, the last thing you want to do is break into a home, knowing that nearly every law abiding citizen is armed…and vice versa…if guns are restricted to the point that its near impossible for a law abiding citizen to own one and exercise their God given right to defend themselves, the criminals are emboldened because the chances of them meeting armed resistance is minimal.

In summary: More guns equals less crime, less guns equals more crime, and statistics confirm this. Why did 96.2% of mass public shootings occur in “Gun Free Zones” between January of 1998, and December of 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center? Why don’t these sickos target a gun show…or a mass gathering in a constitutional carry state where citizens don’t even need a permit to carry concealed? The answer is obvious. So, if guns are banned and the murder rates increase as expected, the anti-gunners will have even more reason to shout and say “Look!  Look how many murders are committed with handguns!” and so on, and so forth. Like we mentioned; the UK is considering banning points on knives now. History just repeats itself, and this cycle of Tyranny happens all over the world. Their reasoning for banning certain types of guns is a ruse to ban all guns, it’s time we recognize it for what it is. Throughout all of history, the only thing that separates a free man from a slave is the possession of weapons…and our founding fathers wanted and required nearly every able-bodied man to have the most modern, most effective weapon.

“But, I’m still not convinced!”

“Private gun ownership was banned in Venezuela in June 2012, but their homicide rate went from 73 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 82 per 100,000 people in 2015.  A private organization, the Venezuelan Violence Observatory (OVV), puts the rate in 2015 at over 90 per 100,000 people.   The BBC seriously repeats the Venezuelan government’s claim that the ban is an “attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime.”  The ban was preceded by an amnesty to get people to turn in their guns.  The video gives some idea of what life is like in Venezuela these days.” Crime Prevention Research Center

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8.