11 Jan

A Little Reality in a Sea of Fantasy on Gun Control

                                       

I think it’s about time to sit down and talk with you realistically about the ignorance of those advocating for bans on so-called “assault weapons” (AW) and so-called “high-capacity” magazines.

First and foremost, I object to the use of both terms. They are nothing more than scare tactics designed by opponents to create fear of inanimate objects. They are used to assume there is safety in less capacity and less menacing characterics. However, I use the terms merely to sync my words with the common media vernacular to avoid confusion.

To be honest, I’m not even sure what constitutes an AW. I know that ARs and AKs fit into that category, but the using the 90′s AW ban as a guideline, the possibilities of defining a rifle as an AW are virtually limitless. Take the Ruger Mini-14, for example.

Mini14

I think everyone, including the gun control nazis, that this is a perfectly acceptable gun that we can trust the general population to own. It looks likes a perfectly fine weapon for hunting (understanding that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, as I’ve previously explained), right?

There is no extendable stock. It doesn’t have an evil pistol grip. It’s got a wooden frame instead of a black one. The magazine cannot hold 30 or more rounds. None of those murder-prone picatinny rails. It’s just a down-to-earth, typical American rifle one would expect to see in the back window of a pickup truck. But, it does shoot the standard .223 or 5.56mm rounds that most ARs shoot.

What’s great about Ruger’s Mini 14 is that is highly customizable. There is an endless number of changes that can be made to it to suit the owner’s likes and needs. Consider the following progression.

Mini14a

Uh oh. This is the same rifle, but it’s beginning to look scary with that collapsible stock and a pistol grip. However, since it’s still got a wooden frame and a small magazine it should still be ok.

Mini14b

Ok, now you’ve gone too far, CJ. This is simply unacceptable. It’s black and the magazine is much too large. We need to ban this weapon. Never mind that this one is the EXACT SAME weapon in terms of mechanics, lethality, accuracy, and cycling as the first one above. The problem is that this is the same weapon as the first one above. But, just for giggles, let’s take it one more step then I’ll get into some other aspects of these AW bans.

Mini14c

Now, THAT is how you kit out a Ruger Mini 14!!

But, let’s get serious for a moment, shall we? I live on my family farm here in Texas. The farm has been in our family for 4 generations. I live right across the street from the first plot of land my grandfather ever purchased. We now farm over 6,500 acres, much of it leased. We have hundreds of head of cattle. We are also dealers for Pioneer seed as well as fertilizer that farmers use to make the same acre of land fertile for growing crops year after year. One of the chemicals we use is called anhydrous ammonia.

Anhydrous ammonia is gas you can’t see, but can suffocate you with a sharp, pungent odor. Think about the worst smell of ammonia you’ve ever smelled and then multiply that probably 10 times. It is a chemical made up of one part nitrogen and three parts hydrogen and compressed into liquid form to fertilize fields. As you know, plants take nutrients out of the earth in order to grow. Using the same land to grow crops year after year or season after season depletes the soil of those much-needed nutrients, especially nitrogen.

Using anhydrous ammonia in fields replenishes that lost nitrogen into the soil. It’s very easy to apply and readily available to farmers. As it is released into the soil it expands into a gas where it rapidly combines with soil moisture.

Sounds harmless enough, right? Wrong.

Anhydrous ammonia is also an ingredient used to make methamphetamines. Most meth manufacturers reside in rural areas to avoid easy detection by police and neighbors, and use the resources that are readily available to them. These “resources” often include anhydrous ammonia.

Over the years, we have experienced several incidents where we had meth producers try to steal our anhydrous. One such instance that occurred the first year I moved back home resulted in a major chase between the thieves and my cousins. Seeing that we were all well-armed with different AW-type weapons, the thieves thought twice about sticking around. The mere sight of those guns was enough to scare them off and keep them away. We chased them out of the county.

Another aspect of living out in rural America that may necessitate the use of high capacity magazines is defending a herd or flock from coyotes. Coyotes hunt in both packs and individually. They are fast, moving targets. While many farmers employ the use of asses to defend their livestock, they aren’t always affective. Yes, there are lazy asses on farms too. In some places, farmers also have to contend with mountain lions and cougars as well. Why should we be relegated to just using hunting rifles when we just want to kill the threat to our livelihood?

However, there won’t always be a time when the thieves are going to be so easily spooked. I have no doubt that a desperate druggie may think he can shoot his way out. In such potential cases, only being able to own a 10-round clip isn’t going to help.

A criminal won’t care about capacity bans. If we were to obey the law and only own these smaller capacity clips, we would be at a major disadvantage.

There is a reason that Soldiers don’t use 10-round clips and haven’t since Vietnam. In the heat of the moment when adrenaline is high and nerves are tense, it’s often difficult to focus complete attention on the fundamentals of marksmanship, which include steady position, aim, breathing, and trigger squeeze. It’s hard to control breathing when you’re repelling an ambush or rushing through an urban environment. Not every round is going to hit your target and, let’s face it, the purpose behind using weapons is to remove the threat. Ten rounds weren’t cutting it on the battlefields of war, so you know they wouldn’t cut it in the criminal battlefields of America.

There are techniques to speed loading that many troops and police officers train on. One just need do a YouTube search for “speed loading rifle” to see that a trained shooter doesn’t need much time to reload a magazine. Even the untrained person wouldn’t have to take as much time to reload a magazine, providing he had more than one at his disposal.

The truth is that your average farmer or ranch owner isn’t going to carry around combat load of seven magazines. Most only even keep one magazine for each weapon they own unless it came with additional ones. A 10-round magazine simply won’t cut it when the need arises. And even if that person had several 10-round magazines loaded, he probably won’t remember to grab them when the threat materializes.

Even though I’ve give some reasons why “high capacity” magazines shouldn’t be banned, really my whole argument is a moot point. The type of magazine used isn’t what is contributing to the mass murders in this country. The fact is that any object in the hands of a criminal is a weapon. People are killed with bare fists, bats, pipes, trophies, scissors, knives, 2-hole punches, arrows, saws, screwdrivers, hammers, nail guns, golf clubs, rocks, rope, water, razors, electricity, bricks, broomsticks, totem poles, cars, tire irons, pillows, drugs, explosives, fire, tree branches, poison, ice picks, shovels, machetes, swords, candlesticks, etc. But, we aren’t banning those devices, are we?

Besides all the reasons I mentioned above, the simple fact is that an AW ban still won’t work. Just yesterday there was a story about a kid who planned his killing for a year. The shooter didn’t use an AW to target his classmates. He used a shotgun. If not for the brave actions of completely unarmed faculty, the results still could have been deadly. The shooter had 20 more rounds in his pocket and it doesn’t take long to load a shotgun either.

Keep these things in mind the next time someone poses the ignorant question, “why do regular citizens need an AW anyway?” Then also remind them about what happened during the LA riots. I more shop owners wish they had one then.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, January 11th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
| 1,540 views

82 Responses to A Little Reality in a Sea of Fantasy on Gun Control

  1. Hard Right says: 1

    One can draw a second handgun faster than reload one. Even if both guns have only 10 round magazines, that’s 22 bullets they can fire.
    So if I’m someone who wants to commit a massacre, I go to an area that I know has no armed individuals. That way when I need to pull that second gun, I don’t have to worry about getting shot during the brief lull.

    An honest citizen fighting for their life and in the middle of a shootout with bad guys, does not have the luxury of leisurely grabbing a second gun or reloading. High capacity magazines can SAVE lives!
    The people demanding a ban on high capacity magazines have no idea how lethal force encounters go down, and seem to have no ability, imagination, or desire to understand them. Those that don’t want to ban guns outright, seem to think that the Hollywood meme that you only need to shoot someone once because they’ll fall down helpless, is accurate. It’s not. Plus, what happens if you are attacked by multiple attackers? Years ago I watched a guy literally get stomped unconcious by 4 Mexican gangbangers in a store parking lot because he mouthed off to them. They jumped in their car and came straight at me. Although I was carrying concealed, I knew I was in trouble if they jumped out and came after me for being a witness. My gun only had 8 rounds. Fortunately they veered off after I got behind a parked car and then kept going. I switched to a pistol that held more ammo after that.

    Something else I recall from the last magazine ban. Criminals switched to larger caliber handguns. That means bigger wounds for their victims.

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 2

    They are nothing more than scare tactics designed by opponents to create fear of inanimate objects.

    All inanimate objects are not created equally. Does anyone really think the perpetrators of these mass shootings would have acted without the overwhelming sense of power a gun bestows on its handler? Would tortured little weakling Adam Lanza have walked into that school with a 2×4 to wreck havoc? Of course not. Easy access to guns is a key variable to this and other tragedies that cannot be wished away with cliches. Let’s be honest, it’s not just sociopaths fetishizing guns, if the ever expanding roster of the NRA is any indication. People will go to any lengths to justify their passions.

    But, let’s get serious for a moment, shall we? I live on my family farm here in Texas. The farm has been in our family for 4 generations. I live right across the street from the first plot of land my grandfather ever purchased. We now farm over 6,500 acres,
    —-
    Another aspect of living out in rural America that may necessitate the use of high capacity magazines is defending a herd or flock from coyotes

    I admit you’ve made a compelling case for why you singular can make good use of an AW. Of course there is another 99.9% of the US population who don’t live on their own 6,500 acre ranches, and who don’t have to contend with roaming bands of meth cookers and coyotes on a regular basis. Since you’re attempting to justify the practical necessity of AWs in your post, did Adam Lanza’s mother in suburban CT have any compelling reason for one? Or, perhaps, as we’ve seen too many times, her possession of a weapon she didn’t need was actually the most dangerous element in her life, and in her neighbors’ lives. Answer me this, would you support special licensing for obtaining weapons classified as Assault Weapons based on necessity and the ability to handle one responsibility? Someone like you would obviously have no problem obtaining one under those conditions. What is the justification for letting everyone have one, when most people don’t need them, and their presence in most communities only constitutes a potential threat to innocents? I keep hearing how it’s all about “not punishing the law abiding citizen”. That’s beside the point. Is it punishing law abiding citizens that they can’t own surface to air missiles? Weapons that can kill scores of innocent people and that have no purpose in civil society are not sold period.

    ReplyReply
  3. Tom says: 3

    @Hard Right:

    My gun only had 8 rounds. Fortunately they veered off after I got behind a parked car and then kept going. I switched to a pistol that held more ammo after that.

    I’ve lived my entire life, mostly in cities, without ever having a gun. My reaction to sticky situations isn’t to run out and buy a bigger gun. This knee-jerk reaction to fear and what it breads astounds me. What are the statistical chances that your gun will kill a criminal versus it will kill you or an innocent person?

    ReplyReply
  4. CJ says: 4

    @Tom:

    Let’s be honest, it’s not just sociopaths fetishizing guns, if the ever expanding roster of the NRA is any indication. People will go to any lengths to justify their passions.

    What you call a “fetish” most gun owners consider protection. Some owners, like me, are also just collectors. I don’t have enough money to shoot all the AW I own, but I love collecting them and shooting them every now and then. Being able to own guns is not just a passion, it’s a RIGHT. The Constitution didn’t give us these rights, it only recognizes them. Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, we’d still have the right to own firearms to protect ourselves. You’d also have to repeal the ninth amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But, even if you repealed the 9th Amendment, we still have God-given or inalienable rights to self-defense.

    Of course there is another 99.9% of the US population who don’t live on their own 6,500 acre ranches, and who don’t have to contend with roaming bands of meth cookers and coyotes on a regular basis.

    Maybe not, but they have to deal with drug dealers in cities, suburbs, etc. They may have to deal with armed illegals crossing their property in southern states. They may have to deal with gangs or street thugs. And, finally, one day they may have to deal with a tyrannical government. So, yes, EVERY SINGLE PERSON that desires to safeguard their freedom should own an AW.

    did Adam Lanza’s mother in suburban CT have any compelling reason for one?

    Again, we don’t need a “compelling reason.” That is a false argument.

    Or, perhaps, as we’ve seen too many times, her possession of a weapon she didn’t need was actually the most dangerous element in her life, and in her neighbors’ lives.

    How do you know she didn’t need it. Who is to say who does or doesn’t need that weapon? That weapon wasn’t a threat to anyone until it was stolen and in the hands of a murderer. The kid in California used a shotgun.

    Answer me this, would you support special licensing for obtaining weapons classified as Assault Weapons based on necessity and the ability to handle one responsibility?

    No, I would not. There is nothing special about handling an AW over handling a hunting rifle or a shotgun. Obviously, the ballistics are different and are affected even more by ammo type. Since EVERY AMERICAN should be prepared to defend this country against foreign invasion or usurpation of a tyrannical government, there is no need to prove “necessity.” The framers of the Constitution enshrined that need in the 2nd Amendment.

    What is the justification for letting everyone have one, when most people don’t need them, and their presence in most communities only constitutes a potential threat to innocents?

    The premise of your question in inaccurate. Those weapons aren’t posing a threat to anyone. My weapons aren’t posing a threat to anyone unless someone wants to threaten my rights. You blame an inanimate object that is located in homes across American and aren’t a threat to anyone. Again, your premise can’t be responded to because it’s a false premise.

    Is it punishing law abiding citizens that they can’t own surface to air missiles?

    Ahhh, the old “you can’t have a nuclear weapon” strawman. Yawn. But, I’ll play your game. Even if I owned surface to air missiles, emplaced anti-aircraft guns in my front yard, and dug a missile silo for a nuclear weapon, they wouldn’t be a threat to anyone unless I had reason to defend myself with them.

    Let’s be honest, it’s not just sociopaths fetishizing guns, if the ever expanding roster of the NRA is any indication. People will go to any lengths to justify their passions.

    What you call a “fetish” most gun owners consider protection. Some owners, like me, are also just collectors. I don’t have enough money to shoot all the AW I own, but I love collecting them and shooting them every now and then. Being able to own guns is not just a passion, it’s a RIGHT. The Constitution didn’t give us these rights, it only recognizes them. Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, we’d still have the right to own firearms to protect ourselves. You’d also have to repeal the ninth amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But, even if you repealed the 9th Amendment, we still have God-given or inalienable rights to self-defense.

    Of course there is another 99.9% of the US population who don’t live on their own 6,500 acre ranches, and who don’t have to contend with roaming bands of meth cookers and coyotes on a regular basis.

    Maybe not, but they have to deal with drug dealers in cities, suburbs, etc. They may have to deal with armed illegals crossing their property in southern states. They may have to deal with gangs or street thugs. And, finally, one day they may have to deal with a tyrannical government. So, yes, EVERY SINGLE PERSON that desires to safeguard their freedom should own an AW.

    did Adam Lanza’s mother in suburban CT have any compelling reason for one?

    Again, we don’t need a “compelling reason.” That is a false argument.

    Or, perhaps, as we’ve seen too many times, her possession of a weapon she didn’t need was actually the most dangerous element in her life, and in her neighbors’ lives.

    How do you know she didn’t need it. Who is to say who does or doesn’t need that weapon? That weapon wasn’t a threat to anyone until it was stolen and in the hands of a murderer. The kid in California used a shotgun.

    Answer me this, would you support special licensing for obtaining weapons classified as Assault Weapons based on necessity and the ability to handle one responsibility?

    No, I would not. There is nothing special about handling an AW over handling a hunting rifle or a shotgun. Obviously, the ballistics are different and are affected even more by ammo type. Since EVERY AMERICAN should be prepared to defend this country against foreign invasion or usurpation of a tyrannical government, there is no need to prove “necessity.” The framers of the Constitution enshrined that need in the 2nd Amendment.

    What is the justification for letting everyone have one, when most people don’t need them, and their presence in most communities only constitutes a potential threat to innocents?

    The premise of your question in inaccurate. Those weapons aren’t posing a threat to anyone. My weapons aren’t posing a threat to anyone unless someone wants to threaten my rights. You blame an inanimate object that is located in homes across American and aren’t a threat to anyone. Again, your premise can’t be responded to because it’s a false premise.

    Is it punishing law abiding citizens that they can’t own surface to air missiles?

    Ahhh, the old “you can’t have a nuclear weapon” strawman. Yawn. But, I’ll play your game. Even if I owned surface to air missiles, emplaced anti-aircraft guns in my front yard, and dug a missile silo for a nuclear weapon, they wouldn’t be a threat to anyone unless I had reason to defend myself with them.

    What are the statistical chances that your gun will kill a criminal versus it will kill you or an innocent person?

    Thanks for asking. Statistically a gun is more likely to prevent crime than to cause it. Glad you brought that up.

    ReplyReply
  5. Tom says: 5

    @CJ:

    Again, we don’t need a “compelling reason.” That is a false argument.

    Then what is the point of your post? Why spend all this time sketching this elaborate meth and coyote inspired reason when you don’t need one? Why not just write two words, “Second Amendment” and be done with it? You and those like you fall back so easily to that when pressed even slightly. You pretend to offer reasons, but when pressed it’s all “Second Amendment”. These attempts at logically explaining why it’s so great to flood America with assault weapons are just thin veneer. They can’t stand up to much can they? Thank god you have the ultimate fall back.

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 6

    @CJ:

    Even if I owned surface to air missiles, emplaced anti-aircraft guns in my front yard, and dug a missile silo for a nuclear weapon, they wouldn’t be a threat to anyone unless I had reason to defend myself with them.

    Good for you. So that means anyone should be allowed to buy one, because you’re personally responsible?

    ReplyReply
  7. CJ says: 7

    @Tom:

    Why spend all this time sketching this elaborate meth and coyote inspired reason when you don’t need one? Why not just write two words, “Second Amendment” and be done with it?

    Are you that obtuse? Is that a real question? You and everyone else is demanding all these pretty excuses and reasons; demanding descriptions of necessity. So, you’re telling me all I’d have to say is “second amendment” and you’d just shut up about gun control? I don’t think so.

    ReplyReply
  8. CJ says: 8

    @Tom: I’m not saying that either way. Who has the money to buy surface to air missiles? But, if our government got frisky, you better believe I wished I’d bought a couple. Heck, with all these drones buzzing overhead spying on us, I may look into the feasibility. Thanks for the idea.

    ReplyReply
  9. Tom says: 9

    @CJ:

    You blame an inanimate object that is located in homes across American and aren’t a threat to anyone. Again, your premise can’t be responded to because it’s a false premise.

    Actually, you’re the one peddling a false premise, that some “inanimate objects” aren’t more dangerous than others. Is fire dangerous? Is the smallpox virus? Many things are inherently dangerous and thus are worthy of special precaution or consideration. The idea that guns are no different than toasters is preposterous. You should just stick with the Second Amendment.

    ReplyReply
  10. Tom says: 10

    @CJ:

    Are you that obtuse? Is that a real question? You and everyone else is demanding all these pretty excuses and reasons; demanding descriptions of necessity. So, you’re telling me all I’d have to say is “second amendment” and you’d just shut up about gun control? I don’t think so.

    Of course I won’t shut up. My point is that your always having to fall back proves the weakness of your arguments.

    ReplyReply
  11. retire05 says: 11

    @Tom:

    In 2011 alone, almost 15 million hunting licences were granted in the United States. California issued over 280,000 and that is just California in 2009. Perhaps you would like to give us the percentage of those hunters, who used weapons that gun grabbers like you would consider AWs, killed anyone?

    Again, as I said before, in an argument you tried to twist, more people are murdered by vehicles than by firearms. The reason we don’t know the exact number of vehicular murders is because the FBI doesn’t report them, only as accidental deaths. But when you climb in a car drunk, and you kill someone, you are just as guilty of murder as was the Newtown shooter. I don’t see you demanding more stringent regulations on the American citizenry to be able to operate a motor vehicle.

    How bad is it? Well, you can go to this website:

    http://www.local2544.us

    And link on to their webpage that honors those murdered by illegal aliens. You will find most of the murders were vehicular murders. Drunk illegals killing Americans. Not one word from you about that.

    Your argument is that guns kill people. So do baseball bats, knives, hands, fists and feet. What new regulations do you support to end those murders?

    ReplyReply
  12. Kalashnikat says: 12

    Newtown/Sandy Hook Elementary was a tragedy…but none of what you lefties are proposing would have prevented it…an obsessive nutcase with a couple gallons of gasoline and a couple of bicycle locks to chain the doors shut could have killed as many or more…
    The disturbed shooters in all the most recent cases planned their attacks…in gun free zones (with the exception of the Gabby Gifford shooting, where there were armed civilians present who forbore shooting because the target was in a crowd of innocents…but they did tackle him).

    The critical common elements are a sick individual and a gun-free/defender free zone in most cases…and the sick/evil individuals in almost every case had either been on or had quit taking psychotropic medication…that’s three common factors that should be addressed before anyone starts talking about taking away the rights of responsible, adult, law abiding people to protect themselves and their families by whatever means they choose.

    These weapons are all defensive or they wouldn’t be used by the police, armed guards, or the military, or the secret service…
    Try a gun free zone at the whitehouse or Congress or the Supreme court before you start telling me that my kids have to sit in one, undefended…

    ReplyReply
  13. Greg says: 13

    There is no extendable stock. It doesn’t have an evil pistol grip. It’s got a wooden frame instead of a black one. The magazine cannot hold 30 or more rounds. None of those murder-prone picatinny rails. It’s just a down-to-earth, typical American rifle one would expect to see in the back window of a pickup truck. But, it does shoot the standard .223 or 5.56mm rounds that most ARs shoot.

    While your Ruger mini 14 will chamber both standard .223 and 5.56mm ammunition, I’m told it’s a very bad idea to use 5.56×45 ammunition. The higher pressure that the 5.56 develops when fired in a mini 14 can cause the barrel to rupture. Apparently this is because there’s not enough space between the bullet-end of the chambered 5.56 cartridge and the point where the mini 14′s rifling begins. There’s hardly any smooth barrel space at all, so the gas pressure peaks at the moment the bullet encounters the resistance of the rifling.

    Just because it fits doesn’t mean it’s safe to put it in there. This came up in a discussion about antique shotguns. Many old shotguns aren’t up to the pressure of a modern cartridge—not because they’re old, but because of the way the barrels were commonly constructed.

    So I’ve been told. I don’t own a mini 14. I would certainly do some research, if I did.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 14

    @Kalashnikat, #12:

    These weapons are all defensive or they wouldn’t be used by the police, armed guards, or the military, or the secret service…

    With a firearm, defensive or offensive is entirely a matter of the user’s intention.

    ReplyReply
  15. Nan G says: 15

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

    George Washington

    “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

    Thomas Paine

    “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; …


    Thomas Jefferson

    “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

    Edmund Burke

    “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    Utah town’s leaders want all residents to own guns
    Utah law allows any concealed weapon permit holder (5% of Utah’s populace) to bring a gun on any school campus.
    There are built-in exemptions for people restricted by law from owning a gun or those who simply object to owning one.

    ReplyReply
  16. Smorgasbord says: 16

    I forget where I read or heard it, but one term you don’t see the propaganda media use is MASSACRE. We have had many massacres over the years. You still hear about the St. Valentines Day massacre. A group of people killed by one or more people USED TO BE called a massacre, and the one doing the killing USED TO BE called a murderer.

    There are no more massacres, and there are no more murderers. Massacres are now called shootings, and the murderers are called shooters.

    If a civilian is using an assault weapon to defend themselves against intruders, shouldn’t it be called an anti-assault weapon, since it is being used against the one doing the assaulting?

    One question I have for those who want guns banned is, “If you are going to be attacked by someone, do you want it to happen in a city that bans guns, or one that allows concealed carry?” I like living in an area where there are probably several armed people around me.

    I like what one state politician wants. He wants each state to decide for themselves whether to ban guns or not. Each state would vote on the issue, and the majority would decide. If you want a gun-free state, and your state votes for guns, you can always move to one that bans them.

    ReplyReply
  17. Hard Right says: 17

    @Tom:

    The fact you have to keep making up strawmen and have displayed overt bigotry tells me you’re the one with issues and nothing to back up your argument. You’re pretty much hysterical and like greg, anyone who has a gun you don’t approve of, you see as unstable. You are projecting.

    I should thank you for posting, tho. You show exactly what we are dealing with from the far left. Hatred, hysteria, and deliberate denial of reality is what drives you. So when people see you claim that you want only “common sense” gun laws, they know the truth about what that really means.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nan G says: 19

    @Smorgasbord:
    Changing what things are called is only part of the Leftist attempt at controlling the narrative, Smorgasbord.
    The leftist-compliant media also picks and chooses which gun-related stories it will run…..
    A woman defending her 9-year-old twin boys is barely covered.
    Her shots hit the intruder without killing him and stopped the attack.
    OTOH, the media plays up the shooting at the school.
    …..
    In 6 separate incidents a couple of young Chicago teens were killed in gunfire overnight, along with four other Chicago teens who have not died from their gunshot wounds.
    Where is the vast media coverage of how gun-free city living is for black youths?
    The gangs are left in control of vast swatches of Chicago and the leftist media is mute.
    …..

    It was the same with homelessness.
    Under both Bushes the leftist media made sure we heard all about how the homeless were suffering and growing in numbers.
    But I know for a fact (because up until starting to prep for our move I served food twice a month to the homeless at our downtown park) there are more homeless under Obama than EVER in Long Beach’s history.
    You cannot get on the 710 freeway at 7th and miss all of the many tent cities under each bridge, overpass, under trees and large shrubs, on the riverbank and even under billboards.
    It was NEVER this bad.
    But Obama’s compliant media hides it from his stupid and adoring syncophants.

    ReplyReply
  19. proof says: 20

    CJ: Great article! One small point: Ruger, at least at one time, made a 30 rd. magazine for the Ruger 14, and there have been aftermarket 30 rd. mags as well.

    At least it doesn’t have that evil “bayonet lug”. Drive by bayonetings have always been a problem out here in California. /sarc

    ReplyReply
  20. Hard Right says: 21

    This is what the left wants for Americans.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/11/in-the-absence-of-guns

    ReplyReply
  21. john says: 22

    In 2006 about 3200 teens and children were killed by guns. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf
    In the last 20 years 500,000 Americans have died from gunshots, about 50% from suicide. Gun suicide is the 1st choice of both teens and veterans.

    ReplyReply
  22. proof says: 23

    @john: And Japan, which has over twice our suicide rate and far fewer guns, proves that eliminating guns does not eliminate suicide.

    ReplyReply
  23. Nan G says: 24

    @john:
    I met the police officer who was forced to kill my niece’s husband when he created a suicide-by-cop situation.
    If you want to kill yourself, why on earth would you want to do it that way?
    He put that officer through hell.
    See, he left his house (supposedly with his friend’s gun) then led police on a short chase, then used a piece of plastic to fool police into thinking he had a gun when he lunged at them.
    He could have driven into a wall and died without traumatizing this officer who ended up shooting him fatally.
    Though it was ruled a justifiable shooting, the officer retired early because of it.

    ReplyReply
  24. CJ says: 25

    @john: Guns did not kill a single person by themselves. Additionally, not one single law-abiding person has ever murdered another with a gun.

    ReplyReply
  25. Hard Right says: 26

    @john:

    John the drive by troll throws out stats that lets the left pretend they really mean well by banning all guns. John, we know you don’t care about people that kill themselves. It’s just a means to an end in your eyes.

    ReplyReply
  26. CJ says: 27

    @Nan G: Nan, PTSD is very real in police officers. That is terrible that he had to do that. In Iraq, i was forced to shoot an innocent woman being used as a human shield. That image is the single haunting image for me from the war. I couldn’t tell you about a single Iraqi soldier I had to shoot, but if I could draw, i could make a detailed portrait of that woman.

    ReplyReply
  27. Nan G
    YES THOMAS PAYNE could have seen the future of today when he said that,
    it is just in talk now and already it has disrupt whole COMMUNITIES, IT HAS BROUGHT ALREADY MANY CRIMES, TO THE GOOD PEOPLE, WE SEE THEY SURVIVED BECAUSE OF THEIR WEAPONS,
    yes he is right , horrible pains and worries from STUPID NEWSPAPER SO CALLED JOURNALIST,TELLING BREAKING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PERSONAL AFFAIRS

    ReplyReply
  28. UpChuck.Liberals says: 29

    @Tom: No, your knee jerk reaction is to ban a useful tool, a tool that has been shown to be very proactive in preventing crime, saving lives and most importantly keeping this country free. I can hardly wait for some insane Liberal, of which are legion, to take a little drive to the nearest gas station and load up on enough murder and mayhem to even get the attention of the likes of you. What will your kind do then, ban gas. Oh wait you’re working on that aren’t you!

    ReplyReply
  29. UpChuck.Liberals says: 30

    @john: Oh boy let’s play Facts and Stats.
    2011
    323 killed by Rifles
    496 killed by Hammers
    650 killed by Knives
    726 killed by hands or feet
    12,000 Killed by Drunk Drivers
    and the Winner is 195,000 Killed by Medical Malpractice.

    We aren’t even going to go into the MILLIONS killed by Liberals in their quest for a perfect world.

    Thank you for playing, now go away and impress some of your leftist friends with your useless ‘facts’.

    ReplyReply
  30. UpChuch.Liberals
    wow that ‘s a lot of AMERICANS, to many
    IN 2011, ASTRONOMIC FIGURES,
    something’s wrong in AMERICA,
    that is not counting THE SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN,
    and not counting the abortions

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 32

    @Nan G: #19
    This is why I call the them the propaganda media. I believe they have been infiltrated, just like our government has been. They are just the same as any dictator’s news media. They are doing there part to brainwash us into submission to big government. If you go back and compare how countries were overthrown, it is happening to us now. We, as a country, are sitting in the pot that is being heated up slowly.

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 33

    @CJ: #25
    No icy road has ever killed anybody. The way we drive does. When the media tell of accidents, why don’t they encourage us to drive safer. When they tell of an accidental gun shooting, why don’t they tell us to handle guns responsibly? Could it be that if they helped the accident rates go down, they would have less to report? How long would people listen to news casts that reported mostly good news? For myself, I would love to hear a city media report that there hasn’t been an auto accident, or gun shooting for over a year.

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord says: 34

    @CJ: #27

    I couldn’t tell you about a single Iraqi soldier I had to shoot….

    Thank you for what you do. When you used the term, HAD TO SHOOT, that tells me you’re not one that ENJOYS killing. As I have mentioned different times, how do you tell an INNOCENT c ivilian from the terrorists? She could have loaded the terrorist’s gun before he started using it.

    ReplyReply
  34. John Galt says: 35

    @Greg:
    Very bad idea to promote false information.
    The only mini 14 that will chamber only .223 is the rare target version and is marked as .223. All other mini 14′s are marked 5.56 NATO and will have no problem digesting 5.56 or .223. My mini 14 shoots NATO surplus green tip penetrators at around 3000 fps with no problem, thats a very high pressure cartridge.

    ReplyReply
  35. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    I love the sitting on the pot while they are heating it slowly,
    it’s fun to visualize it,

    ReplyReply
  36. CJ says: 37

    @Smorgasbord: In this particular instance, the Iraqi Soldier was resting his AK on the woman’s shoulder while shooting at us. She was screaming and crying and obviously didn’t want to be there. He was holding her with a scarf or something around her neck. Obviously, he had zero accuracy but the woman had blood coming from her ear as a result of the shooting.

    ReplyReply
  37. harp1034 says: 38

    F.Y.I. as a Viet Nam vet I can tell you we did not use 10 round magazines. We used 20 and 30 rounds for the M-16. But only a 7 round magazine for the .45 Gov’t Model pistol.

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 39

    @CJ: #37
    All I am saying is that she could be one of THEM, but the man knew we don’t shoot innocent civilians, so decided to use her as a shield. We just don’t know.

    As I have said different times, how many soldier’s lives is one innocent civilian’s live worth? I have heard too many stories of the brass deciding they didn’t want to call an air or artillery strike because of the innocent civilians, so soldiers go in, and some have died. How many of you could the guy have killed if you let him keep shooting?

    I have also asked how you guys are supposed to tell an innocent civilian from a terrorist, when the terrorists don’t wear uniforms, and they hide with civilians? You have a lousy job to do, but it has to be done.

    ReplyReply
  39. retire05 says: 40

    I wonder what size magazines Obama’s Secret Service agents carry? If it is more than 10, then it is obvious that this administration thinks their own personal protection is worth more than yours is.

    ReplyReply
  40. Smorgasbord
    I agree with you totall
    so many, too many soldiers where sacrificed for those civiliens,
    which some told of how they help the TALBANS FOR MONEY,
    other where seen digging with their wife and children holding the cluster bombs
    to be bury underneath, exploding by remote for some which many mailed from the MUSLIMS OF ENGLAND,
    HOW MANY TODAY ARE BACK WITH STORIES WHICH MAKE YOUR HAIR RAISE STRAIGHT UP,
    BECAUSE OF THE HELP GIVEN BY CHILDREN AND WIVES OF TERRORIST WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
    TAKING THE HELP OF TROOPS,SO COMPASSIONATE TO CUT THEIR OWN FOOD TO GIVE IT TO THE AFGHANS,
    HOW MANY GOT SHOT IN THE BACK BY THOSE THEY HAVE TAUGHT TO SHOOT?
    WAS IT A GOOD IDEA FROM THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
    WELL LET HIM JUST LOOK IN THE VETERANS HOSPITAL LOOK AT THE BRAVES IN THE EYES
    YOU CANNOT

    ReplyReply
  41. Aqua says: 42

    @Greg:

    With a firearm, defensive or offensive is entirely a matter of the user’s intention.

    Exactly.
    Pseudoephedrine in the hands of normal people is use to relieve sinus congestion. But thanks to meth labs, the government has decided to track who buys it. Instead of enforcing the existing laws, the government always decides to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens….in every single case. If the government is not able to deal with a problem within the confines of existing law, they expand the laws to make more people subject to criminal investigation.
    This myth of Assault Weapons is just that, a myth. They are semi-automatic weapons. Whether it is designed to appear like a military style weapon, or the beautiful walnut stocks of older style weapons, an aut0-loader is an auto-loader. And for the people that say you need nothing more than a bolt-action rifle to hunt with, I say that those people have never had a wild boar surprise them in the woods.
    But more importantly, the argument CJ has been making is correct. The second amendment recognizes our rights, it does not grant them.

    ReplyReply
  42. Greg says: 43

    @John Galt, #35:

    Very bad idea to promote false information.

    I agree. I wouldn’t want to do so. And you’re correct. Apparently the target model is designed only for the .223 Remington cartridge, but all other domestic models can safely fire both.

    I checked online. Confusion on the point seems to be common. This video cleared it up for me. Note the guy has some negative comments about using military surplus ammunition, which he says can damage your rifle.

    What I was told about older model shotguns does appear to be correct.

    ReplyReply
  43. harp1034
    good info thank you for your service
    best wish to you for this year

    ReplyReply
  44. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 45

    As I look over the comment included here, I fail to recognize even one solution to the problem of gun violence in this country. Is that because the far-right doesn’t feel like there is a problem, or they’re just too intellectually lazy to try to figure out an alternative to banning some guns and high-quantity magazines, background checks and closing the private sales loop holes, as proposed by the left? (They’re just satisfied to argue pro-gun rights, and nothing else.)

    ReplyReply
  45. retire05 says: 46

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Chicago has the strongest gun banning laws in the nation. How’s that working out for a city that is totally controlled by leftists?

    So if you’re so worried about murders by guns being committed by legal, law abiding gun owners, why don’t you give us the stats how what percentage of gun murders are committed each year by those legally owning guns? Or do we already know why that is not one of your talking points?

    Do you also support Dianne Feinstein having to relinquish her concealed carry permit or making the White House a gun “free” zone?

    ReplyReply
  46. Liberal1
    there is nothing to add but the law of the land cannot be change,
    the peaceful law abiding gun owners citizens have the law on their sides,
    and are confident no one will commit treason and try to mess up the law,
    what else is there to say,

    ReplyReply
  47. proof says: 48

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): “I fail to recognize even one solution to the problem of gun violence in this country” Yes. You’re a liberal. We just take that for granted. Then you go on to demonize those you disagree with. Again, typical liberal.

    “Intellectually lazy”? Again, that would be you, trying to shove the same tired policies of the past, which have not worked, down our throats. Where has gun control as you propose it ever worked? NYC? Chicago?? Washington, DC??? Connecticut was #4 on the Brady bunch’s list of states with the most gun control. (CA is #1)

    The same sort of gun bans you want here, in England, have caused both violent crime and gun crime to increase. Registering every (phony) “assault” rifle would not have prevented the Newtown shooting, just as a complete ban did not stop William Spengler from shooting those firemen. It was already a felony for him to own any firearm and a felony to possess that particular firearm in N.Y. Feel safer yet?

    We might be able to overlook your projection and your childish naivete, if it did not result in the disarming of law abiding citizens who currently provide a genuine, if not perfect deterrent for crime.

    One small anecdote: I was living in Northern California when Dianne Feinstein proposed her handgun ban in San Francisco. I heard about it on KCBS radio, and the very next story was of a man who’d robbed a liquor store at gunpoint with a sawed off shotgun. For math impaired liberals, let’s count ‘em off:

    1) It is illegal to make a sawed off shotgun (shorter than proscribed by BATF)
    2) It is illegal to own a sawed off shotgun
    3) It is illegal to carry a sawed off shotgun
    4) It is illegal to use a sawed off shotgun, or any weapon in the commission of a robbery.
    5) Thou shalt not steal.

    I’m sure there were other infractions, but you get my drift. All of the things this man had done were already illegal. One more law on the book would not have deterred him.

    Rather than focus on the individual tool that the deranged choose to use, why not focus on the problems of drugs and mental health that turn individuals into mass killers? Or is that because the far-left doesn’t feel like there is a problem? Or do you simply fear that forced institutionalizing of the mentally ill will disproportionately affect liberals?

    ReplyReply
  48. Hard Right says: 49

    Gun control is not about crime control. It’s about controlling the population.

    ReplyReply
  49. they are focussing on the wrong target, that is the law abiding gun owners,
    but they are not touching the criminal’s way of getting guns,
    you don’t see the law abiding gun owners get into shady scenario to get guns,
    no they are up front using the available channels and get the practice range to learn more,
    but the criminals go underground toward mafia , unions, and other criminals who know those place to
    get guns illegally, I bet they go on the streets in places to get it from illegals from MEXICO OR THE BLACK MAFIA OF CHICAGO OR CALIFORNIA DRUG DEALERS, all those channels who know the undergrownd, where the market of prostitution places, are open,
    that’s where they should look up, that’s where the criminals and mentaly violent are looking,
    it is part of a chain of many links to find anything illegal.
    where you don’t see the law abiding gun owners

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site