CALLING ALL AR-15 OWNERS!!...
A PSA-style video is being put together to counter the ridiculous demonization of AR-15s, and their owners, by the control freaks in power, and their useful idiots in the media, and especially the “March For Our Lives” movement.
To get right to the point, we’re looking for people who own AR-15s, and who are willing to make a short video, to be part of a montage-style video, the script of which is shown below (though it may change a bit). We want good video and audio quality, and we want to include a number of people of various professions, ages, races, etc., looking calm, professional, “respectable,” etc. (No, you don’t have to be a voluntaryist or anarchist to do this; just look at the script below and see if you agree with it.)
Patrick Smith (@disenthrall) has generously volunteered to put in the time and effort to organize, compile and edit the video, and made the following Facebook group for people to get up to speed on the details:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/155611418594350/
Below is the current version of the script. The different lines are different people speaking. A number of lines will be repeated by several people. If you want to be involved, let Patrick know right away, preferably by joining the Facebook group at the link above.
(P.S. Yes, this project is ONLY about owners of AR-15s in particular, since that is what the U.S. ruling class is currently demonizing and talking about "banning.")
“I’m a [profession]” (a bunch of people in a row)
“…[and] I own an AR-15.” (a bunch in a row)
“I’ve never pointed it at anyone, or threatened anyone with it.”
“I’ve never endangered anyone with it.”
“I’ve never been irresponsible with it.”
“I am a peaceful person.” (a bunch)
“Now, If you’re one of the people who wants these banned, I just want to know…”
“…I just want to know…” (a bunch)
“What do you personally advocate be done to me personally, if I don’t hand mine over if and when armed agents of the state tell me to?”
“Do you want them kicking down my door?”
“Do you want them dragging me away?”
“Imprisoning me for years?”
“Shooting me?”
“Don’t hide behind euphemisms and vague rhetoric. Be honest and specific.”
“Do you want men with guns using violence against me…”
“…against me…” (a bunch)
“A peaceful person.”
“…if I refuse to be disarmed?” (a bunch)
“Don’t say that you’re against gun violence, and then advocate that men with guns use violence to disarm me.”
“…or me.” (a bunch)
“Being for ‘gun control’ doesn’t mean you are against gun violence, or against guns.”
“It means that you want government to remain heavily armed, while using the threat of violence, by way of men with guns, to disarm millions of people you know nothing about…”
“…including people like me, who have never used a gun to threaten or harm anyone.”
“And that doesn’t make you tolerant.”
“It doesn’t mean you’re noble or virtuous.”
“It doesn’t make you compassionate or caring.”
“It doesn’t mean that you care more about children than I do.”
“It only means that you want government to have more power, and everyone else to have less.”
“And that is not the way to make the world safer.”
Great text, man. Powerful stuff.
Its easy to be in a group, calling for something to be imposed on another group.
Much more confronting to be an individual calling for restrictions on another individual.
You've got my support behind this project. I hope you can find plenty of people to commit to making it happen!
Nope, I won't make the video, but I support the idea and project. The thing about this though is that the powers that shouldn't be know a move against military style weapons will spark a hot revolution. They want one. I will not disarm, and I won't be home when they come to take my guns. I'll be...somewhere waiting for the people coming to collect them or the guns of my neighbors. It will be the first widespread activation of the militia, as defined in Virginia's Declaration of Rights (the whole body of people), in over 100 years. Let them try.
You prove my point. Thanks
Yes, you're welcome. Any attempt to disarm me will be met with deadly force. I understand that you're probably a subject, not a free person, and the concept of individual liberty isn't understood by you. You have nothing to fear form us liberty lovers unless you use violence against us. My weapons are not for hunting. They are owned as a last resort when all else fails to defend my liberties. They are there to stop people like you who want to rule over me, my friends, and my loved ones.
I don't understand. I agree with most of what you posted. But why would you not want to do whatever you could to try to prevent a "hot revolution".
A moderate, factual, informative video such as the one proposed might go a long way in helping confused people rethink their position. Thus it may help prevent a move by the government.
I'm a pessimist and admit it freely. I do not hold out hope that the vast majority of brainwashed zombies around me are going to change their minds. It's too late for that unfortunately.
There are so many obvious manipulations and psyops going on right now, and people who own guns have already given up way too much ground. Shall not be infringed is a pretty clear message. Virginia's Section 13 is even more clear.
I don't need to make a video. People need to read their history books. Sadly, I cannot make them do that and I wouldn't even if I could, so that means this isn't going to end well. This is also why I repeatedly tell people to not depend on documents.
They can easily be changed by an uninformed majority.
The thing is though that the people supposedly in charge know what I'm writing about, and they still don't care. They would rather cause a hot revolution than allows people to remain armed. Us being armed is a major obstacle between them and their objective (total control).
Unfortunately I do not own an AR-15. This seems like a very awesome project. I look forward to seeing the finished product.
People should protect their rights, and this is a great and peaceful way of doing it. Thanks @larkenrose for sharing your opinion on the government and its control over us.
I'm an artist, activist, and comedian. My wife and I both own AR-15s. In fact soon I plan on making my own gun videos for dtube with my guns. What a great video idea and I would love to be part of it.
MMM Guns are baaaad. Government is bad but people who think people need assault rifles for anything other than Fortnite are also bad.
Just because you have not pointed or shot your gun only means you were not put in a situation where you needed to(wanted to). Now if that situation arises are you sure all of these people can calmly make the right call, to shoot or not, when countless veterans suffer from PTSD you think a normal civilian has the god given right to do stupid shit?
Me not being sure that everyone will be rational and moral doesn't justify me committing violent aggression, or advocating that "government" commit violent aggression, against people who haven't threatened or harmed anyone. And this statement makes you sound like a child: "people who think people need assault rifles for anything other than Fortnite are also bad." (It also shows that you swallowed the mainstream propaganda, since you're calling them "assault rifles.") So, feel free to answer the question that you see in the script above. If you had your way, what would YOU advocate be done to ME if AR-15s are "banned" and I refuse to surrender mine?
Fortnite is a great game. Quite enjoyable and i'm good with that. Me making such a ridiculous comparison is simply because what you want is equally ridiculous.
I would say it should be takin by non lethal acceptable force. Should you then decide that you will use lethal force to retain the weapon then I would respond in kind. Sure that leads to war but humanity will always have people who want to feel powerful verus people who want to feel safe (which are you?). Your solution to safety if give everyone a gun. That's just stupid. Your country is broke in so many ways for such a long time you are now in a place where you cant even see it. If a child has a gun and does not hurt himself then you should let him keep it? I say that because the average Americans intelligence is quite low. Just because a child doe's not know better doe's not mean we should let them put themselves and others at risk due to the simple fact they don't know any better.
If you want to do what ever you like regardless of how it makes other people feel then just live alone away from society .
"Your country?" What tax farm are you a subject of, for you clearly have no idea about America's foundational principles?
The right to bear arms? Poor joke but meh. I am from Ireland by the way. I have a basic understanding. Why do you say other wise?
Hah! Green or orange? The Irish understand very well why staying armed is important. LOL
Armed people are free. Unarmed people are not free. You should know that as an Irishman.
You live in the past and prove my point again. I am from the Republic of Ireland and my grandfather fought in the 1916 rising.
Your still wrong..
Those who don't study their history are doomed to repeat it. The reason why private citizens should have guns is because history has shown time and time again that governments can't be trusted with an unarmed citizenry. It gives them too much power without repercussions. I hope that governments won't do what they've always done (genocide, murder, corruption) but I think we should keep the citizens armed just in case. In the last hundred years there have been many "civilized" nations that began murdering their own people after taking away their weapons. Let's not take that risk. I belong to a group that is often targeted in those situations.
Also as a side note. School shootings in the USA have been on a steep decline ever since 1995. It is just good propaganda to say "save the children." But like I said before even if school shootings are on the rise, disarming the citizenry is not a smart idea. It has never ended well. You can look at my last post if you actually care about stopping school shootings, there are much more logical solutions to explore.
What did he use to fight? Answer the question. Orange or green? You're a loyalist, ehh? You're either a loyalist, or you're a conquered subject. Again, you are the one that doesn't understand my demand to live free. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
Do us all a favor and look up democide. I'd never feel safe when disarmed. No, I don't want to give a gun to everyone. All I want is people who wish to have a gun should have one. Then it levels the playing field a bit, and it allows peaceful people to defend themselves. The government has no mandate to defend us, so we have to defend ourselves. The concept is foreign to you of course, but a militia is defined as the whole body of people trained to arms. The Swiss model works pretty well as one example. America's model also works. Since you're not in the USA, let me help by sharing Virginia's Declaration of Rights, written many years before the US Constitution and 2A:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
You won't understand that though because you are probably a subject to a crown and support the idea of some ruling others.
I support the idea of live and let live. I do speak English so saying I won't understand it is kind of dumb. I think you have missed my point. Just because you have things written in your Constitution does not make them the ideal solution. Einstein said that "I do not know which weapons will be used for world war 3, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones". It's a self fulfilling prophecy because people are obsessed with their own needs rather than the needs of the many. Giving someone the ability to destroy multiple lives is not fair on the whole, it only suits the part.
Would you not consider peaceful protest and the right to not have to worry about getting shot because someone missed there meds or got drunk and forgot to lock the cabinet.
Have you even considered different options?
Governments, agents of governments, and predators do not support the idea of live and let live. Therefore, good people need to remain armed.
Obviously you understand English. You clearly don't understand my natural right to use deadly force in defense of my life and the lives of others though as a last resort when all else fails.
Einstein was talking about nuclear weapons, and he may be proven correct. In the mean time though, I'm going to keep my firearms to defend myself. Even if there is a full nuclear exchange, I will still need my rifles.
The government is obsessed with controlling people and keeping them afraid. Predators seek the same thing. Governments can destroy multiple lives, have done it countless times, and will continue to do it. Government is the top killer in fact from recent history. You haven't looked up democide yet, right?
Peacefully protesting doesn't do much. You can't stop predators and mentally ill people from doing harm to others either. If they don't get a gun by murdering their family member or robbing a neighbor, they will use a truck, bat, knife, or bomb.
If your different options involve me disarming, I will not consider them.
Thinking Einstein was talking about Nuclear weapons is a common misconception. He understood how little he knew which is why he said "I do not know which weapons will be used in world war 3"
"Governments, agents of governments, and predators do not support the idea of live and let live. "
Will always be bad people. You know we actually agree about the the root problem, just not the solution. Violence only creates more violence. More readily available weapons means more people get shot, easy enough to understand.
We are talking though a few different threads so can we just keep to this one?
EDIT: "if they don't get a gun by murdering their family member or robbing a neighbor, they will use a truck, bat, knife, or bomb."
Its not about the abilty to kill someone is about the scale at which they can kill many people. That is why giving civilians a weapon that can cut down a crowd in 10 seconds is obviously not a great idea
It's a common misconception? He helped build the first ones. You don't really know your history about him then do you?
More weapons means more people get shot? My weapons and millions of weapons like them in the USA today shot no one. For the number of guns in America, very few people are shot by them. Of the ones who are, a lot are suicides and victims of police.
I'm not violent either, but I will be if someone tries to disarm me. I know history, and I will not help repeat it.
I have a NFA trust. Do you even know what that is? In the early days of America, private individuals owned fleets of warships, the most powerful weapons in existence at the time, and you're worried about my rifles?
I can already own a machine gun, and I can own fully automatic weapons. That's how it should be too. If an agent of the state can carry it, I should be able to carry it too. Again, you are blinded by an acceptance of double standards.
Free people do not have double standards between them and the agents of the government. They are equal under the law, and they have the same consequences for using unjustified violence.
Here in America the violence being used against us by the state is already out of control, and the agents of the government are protected by numerous double standards and countless special protections.
Allowing ourselves to be disarmed will NOT help the situation either.
A weapon that can cut down a crowd in 10 seconds is not the same as a truck or bomb? Are you going to outlaw everything that could potentially be used as a weapon of mass murder?
That's no possible. You're intelligent, or you wouldn't be here. What are you then? An agent of a government perhaps? Someone who promotes some ruling over others? What you are writing makes no sense otherwise.
Democide. Looked it up? Orange or green? You are not answering because why?
"I support the idea of live and let live." Says the guy who just advocated the use of DEADLY FORCE against ME if I don't hand over an inanimate object that I've never used to threaten or harm anyone. The Stockholm Syndrome is strong with this one.
I advocated non deadly force unless otherwise needed. Just because you want something doe's not make it your god given right. You just going to use petty insults or actually try to convince me otherwise?
Using insults instead of logic or common sence is a common theme here. Why do you think your own selfish wants are more important than what is better for all.
Only agents of the government and criminals should have guns. That maximizes fear and allows the government to easily control people. /sarc
That is half correct. But you only point out problems. Give some solutions
It's half correct? How would you stop criminals from having guns? Do laws stop murder? Do laws stop criminals? Do laws stop drug use? Let's be honest, okay?
EXCELLENT.
Just one point on the wording. 'Refuse' sounds a little like you're being uncooperative. My children might refuse to go to bed, despite an obligation to do so.
"Decline" sounds better, as it has overtones of politeness and doesn't carry any 'refusing to meet an obligation' baggage.
That might just be to my Australian ears, though; just putting it out there.
Except "decline" sounds like it's in response to a polite request. "Laws" are demands, backed by threats of force, not polite requests. One does not "decline" to obey crappy "laws"; one refuses to obey crappy laws.
Agreed, refuse is the better word here.
The rhetoric "decline/refuse" cuts both ways and misses the mark. Behind these substitutions what you are really saying is "shall not be infringed". It seems obvious to me that whatever substitution you choose for whatever reason, if you don't follow it somewhere in the script with "shall not be infringed" then you come off with pleading posture. I don't plead for inalienable rights, never have, never will. Also, 'round here (rural NY) we got police officers with "repeal the safe act" signs in their home front yards so there is common ground to respect and share.
I don't own an AR15, not that they are scarce in my neck of the woods, or ever will be. I prefer a Remington Model 870 12 Gauge loaded 00 Buckshot always within reach. Out here, in the dead of night, just the sound of a load being chambered sends the junkie thieves running, and I hate to waste ammo. Most people 'round here hunt coyotes with AR15's as best practice. It saves a lot of fawns. You simply can't save that many fawns without an AR15. Neither will you ever get any traction in that conversation with city folk. As a rule I don't kill anything I don't eat so I don't hunt coyotes. When other things get unmanageable here in NY I'll head to my parcel at Chevelon Canyon Ranch in AZ. That's a different paradigm altogether.
Thank you for all you do.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
Ah, damit! Not Yet! But I guess I wouldn't be eligible...if I had an AR-15 legally I'd have to register it anyway :(.. ("other than legal" it won't probably be wise to show it on the internet, maybe ;)...)