A good watch for anyone that wants to actually see a side by side comparison on semi-auto rifles done by a police officer (Officer Leroy Pyle, San Jose, CA.). He uses the political term "assault rifle" and breaks several safety rules, but its still a good watch. The military term for a full auto rifle is Main Battle Rifle.
At 5:22 he does a side by side on the semi auto AK and the hunting rifle, he follows that by changing the stock on a rifle, adding a bipod, and a higher capacity magazine in less than 2 minutes using only a screwdriver.
Unless charges were filed and he was found guilty of a prohibiting offense the domestic calls would have no bearing on his legal ability to purchase firearms. As for the marines, he was kicked out in basic so he would have been given an Entry Level Separation (with prejudice) which doesn't prohibit anyone from purchasing firearms.
Read my responses to find the origin of the term "assault rifle." Theres no difference between a semi-auto .308 hunting rifle and a semi-auto 7.62x39mm AK-47 other than the shape of the stock and that is something that anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver can change in 5 minutes.
The Supreme Courts ruling re:individual right didn't include any comments about any kind of rifle, only handguns as the matter before them was the constitutionality of a handgun ban.
Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, every single one of them discussed the inevitable corruption that occurs in any government, they all discussed the need of free peoples to be able to defend themself from a corrupt and oppressive government. The federalist papers would be a good start, as would the letters George Washington wrote to the men at the Constitutional Convention. In their own words, they all said that the people need to be as well armed as their government as a last line of defense against that government.
I'm well read on more than just gun control, I take an active interest in the issues facing the country. Gun control happens to be a hot issue and as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment its one I put extra effort into. As far as the rate of incarcerations, look at some of the things we incarcerate people for as compared to other countries. You won't find people in jail for child support or parking tickets in europe. Disorderly conduct/public disturbance gets a fine and community service in england but it can result in jail time here. I have yet to ever see any stats comparing incarceration rates that doesn't exclude those crimes we incarcerate for that other countries don't, we're putting our apples up next to their oranges.
The assault weapon ban did limit magazine capacities for all magazine fed firearms, not just rifles. It didn't work, it takes only a second or two to change a magazine and that can be done while changing the firearms point of aim. I do agree that a change needs to be made, but adding more laws isn't going to fix the problem. The article I linked has some interesting stats in it, such >>only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.<< Felons are prohibited from having firearms or ammunition, we already have laws banning the posession of even a single round of .22 caliber ammo yet it doesn't stop them from getting it. A law saying nobody can buy this type of gun, or a magazine that holds more than this many rounds is doomed to fail before its ever written.
We incarcerate people for unpaid parking tickets and don't let them out early, but we do let armed robbers out early. We lock up people who have unpaid child support and make them serve their full sentence, but we let rapists go after serving only a third of theirs. That's the first thing we need to fix, stop incarcerating people for trivial stuff and keep those who've committed real crimes behind bars. Our incarceration rate would drop dramatically and the streets would be safer for everyone.
Banning guns, wheter its one type, ones with certain features, or all of them won't stop crime. England is a perfect example. In 1994 their Parliment convinced the people that because they had the lowest general crime rate, violent crime rate, and gun related crime rate in the world there was no need for anyone to own guns and successfully banned ownership of them. Every year since then their general, violent, and gun related crime rates have climbed and as of 2001 you're just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and more likely to be the victim of a gun related crime in england than you are in the US. The AWB had the same result on crimes involving the banned guns here.
Bans simply don't work.
According to the FBI, over 73% of homocides involving guns are committed by males age 16-24 against other males age 16-24 and are related to either involvment in a gang or drugs. Also according to the FBI, over 87% of homocides involving a gun were committed with a handgun. Gun related violence is a symptom, not the cause. Why aren't our legislators working to fix the cause? Why aren't there more special interest/lobbyist organizations trying to combat the cause?
The answer to that is simple, when someone gets killed its easier to blame the gun than to actually deal with the real problem. Blame the gun, ban the gun, and everyone says "I'm so glad those guns are off the street" without anyone ever looking at the person that pulled the trigger.
This shooting is a perfect example. Who cares that he was kicked out of USMC basic for assaulting his superior officer. Who cares that he was active in the white supremecist community. Who cares that he slept with body armor on every night. Who cares that he was conviced there was a global jewish conspiracy running the government. Who cares that he obviously had serious psychological issues that weren't being treated. All that matters is the gun.
When its gang members shooting each other its the same thing. Drug dealers, same thing. Repeat offese felons, again its all about the gun. The gun isn't the problem, the man that pulled the trigger is, but as a society we demonize the object and ignore the perpetrator. Its long past time for that to stop.
Good read here: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes--42507652.html
>>Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes
By Don Kates
Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.
Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.<<
All semi-auto rifles fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster it fires multiple shots. Whether its a hunting rifle or an "assault rifle" makes no difference at all in regards to how rapidly shots can be fired. The grip used is determined by the stock you attach to the firing mechanism. Pistol grip stocks are readily available for "hunting rifles" and monte carlo stocks (no pistol grip) are readily available for "assault rifles." Pistol grip or monte carlo is simply cosmetics and has nothing to do with the actual firing mechanism of the rifle. The Simonov SKS is labeled as an assault rifle, but the standard stock on it does not have a pistol grip. Legacy Sports M-1500 is a hunting rifle that comes from the factory with a pistol grip. On any rifle, whether semi auto or bolt action, a pistol grip changes the angle of the wrist to a natural one which imprives accuracy.
The majority of the rifles labeled "Assault rifles" have solid hardwood stocks. Solid hardwood is not light. They also have primarily machined recievers, meaning they are carved on a CNC lathe from a solid block of metal which is also heavy. Hunting rifles primarily use medium weight wood stocks and recievers stamped from sheet metal making them far lighter than "assault rifles."
Collaspible (and all other) stocks are available for all rifles and are something that is installed on the firing mechanism but has nothing to do with how the rifle fires. You can buy collapsible stocks, rails, forearms, and anything else you want for any rifle. If you want to put a collapsible pistol grip stock with forearm, rails, tactical light, holographic sights, and laser on a remington hunting rifle you can order one from most any supplier of aftermarket stocks. The result will be a rifle that looks just as scary and is more powerful than an "assault rifle" but which nobody would consider banning because its "just a tricked out hunting rifle."
As stated in a previous post, commercially manufactured high capacity magazines are available for nearly any rifle. I have a hunter supply catalog here that has 100rd magazines in it for several hunting rifles that can be bought at any Dicks Sporting Goods store. The standard magazine that comes with "assault rifles" is 10rd, the same as with other magazine fed rifles. Aftermarket magazines are produced by aftermarket manufacturers for nearly all common rifles because there is a market for them, usually a market they created by manufacturing the magazines.
Assault rifle and assault weapon are terms that did not exist in the firearms industry until the Violence Policy Center (owned by the Brady Campaign) used them in a press release. Their own internal memos (which were leaked) state those terms were created to describe any gun that looks like something the military would use to scare those who are not knowledgeable about firearms. They exist only to scare those ignorant of how firearms actually work.
Bob:
You hit the nail on the head.
Ed:
The discussion was guns, not pesticides. Twisting my responses to the discussion of guns by attempting to apply them to something else is disingenuous at best. It's obvious from the next two paragraphs of your post that you have no intention to actually discuss the issue.
There was no subtext in my statements, I do not play those games. I state exactly what I mean, if it is not stated it is not meant. Our founding fathers knew that all government eventually become corrupt and oppressive and enumerated our rights to both protect us from that and ensure that if the need arose the people would have the ability to defend themself from said corrupt government. That is simple fact, nothing more nothing less. My patriotic duty, and that of every american, is to do everything in my/our power to prevent that need from ever arising. Armed resistance is the absolute last resort, and we are still far from needing to resort to it.
"""Then “Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but” You put in a qualifier."""
And yet you choose not to quote the qualifier. Why is that? Why did you choose not to quote the qualification that nobody should be expected to give up their rights as well? You wish to speak of "subtexts," so lets. You're decision to not quote the rest of the statement makes it clear that you feel others should be required to give up their rights just so you can "feel" all warm and fuzzy inside. So which of your rights will you give up so I can have that same "warm fuzzy feeling?" If I pointed out the documented fact that, as per the FBI annual crime report, the number one cause of interpersonal violent crime is religion and demanded the federal government either ban or severely restrict the exercise of religion to prevent those crimes would you say "OK, ill give up my freedom of religion?" Its common sense that if something is the number one cause of a major criminal issue it should be banned or restricted, so would you be willing to go along with that and give up your first amendment right so I can "feel" all warm and fuzzy?
Yes, we do lead the world in incarceration. We also lead the world in apathy. Start looking at the stats in regards to the number of people who are willing to tell the police what they saw, you'll find that as a nation we "don't want to get involved." People see someone committing a crime and just keep on walking like they didn't see a thing. People see someone grab his chest and fall to the ground they don't even bother to dial 911, they just cross the street and continue on their way. Those inclined to commit crimes know this, they know that even if 100 people see them there won't be any witnesses, and even if 1 person does decide to do the right thing he knows that he'll get a slap on the wrist, 3 square meals, food, clothing, shelter, cable tv, and a weight room all on the taxpayers dime. Those inclined to violate the law have no reason to fear the repurcussions of their actions because they know there isn't likely to be any so they have no incentive to not commit the crime. The result is a large number of people incarcerated for short periods of time rather than a smaller number of real criminals incarcerated for longer periods of time.
Nobody in the "gun lobby" threatens legislators, voters do exercise their right to be represented by someone who they feel best represents them by voting for, or not voting for their legislators, so if I (and the rest of the voters) feel someone is not representing me I won't give them my vote. Thats how elections work.
I've made no threats of any kind, they serve no useful purpose. I make no attempt to intimidate anyone, I state simple facts. If someone is intimidated by facts that is their issue, not mine.
Gun control laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes, the '94 AWB proved that. During the 10 years before the ban was passed FBI stats showed that use of the firearms banned under the AWB was decreasing every year. Based on the rate of decrease, in 3 years time their use would have been under .001% of all firearm use in crime. Then the ban was passed and their use increased every year for the first 7 years of the ban before dopping off again. By the time the ban expired it had dropped down to where it was only 3 times higher than it had been in the last year before the ban. Instead of preventing crimes from being committed with those firearms, in increased the crime committed with those firearms. Since the ban expired, the number of crimes committed with those guns has continued to drop, and as of the 2008 FBI crime report it was back down to where it was in 1993. Under the AWB the decrease in use of the banned guns reversed itself for the first 7 years, then went back to decreasing and has continued to decrease since the epiration of the ban. It doesn't take much to figure out why use of rifles by criminals was decreasing before the ban, they're nearly impossible to conceals and unless you're decked out in full military gear its nearly impossible to carry any more ammunition than is in the gun. Having everyone know you're up to no good the moment you walk out your front door is not conducive to success in a life of crime.
I'll assume you aren't familiar with what caliber refers to and explain it (ill also assume lack of knowledge of cartidge construction), please don't take offense to it as this approach isnt intended to belittle, the easiest way to explain it is to use a "no previous knowledge" explanation. A cartidge consists of a bullet (the projectile), a casing (holds the powder charge), a powder charge (gunpowder that when ignited produces gas that expands and propels the bullet down the barrel) and a primer (struck by hammer/firing pin to ignite the powder charge).
7.62x39mm means that the bullet is 7.62 millimeters in diameter and 39mm long. .308 caliber means that the bullet is .308 inches in diameter but doesn't reference the length because with english system calibers a difference in length is referenced using another qualifier such as year of manufacture or designer name. ie .308, 30-06, and 30-30 all use a .308 inch diameter bullet, but the bullets vary in length, the 30-06 was introduced in 1906, the 30-30 in 1930.
That said, the military does not use a smaller bullet, they use a smaller powder charge. Military grade 7.62x39/.308/.223/etc is identical to civilian grade 7.62x39/.308/.223/etc excpept for the amount of powder inside the casing. The military grade uses less powder resulting in lower recoil and less brusing to the shoulder of the person firing the gun as well as more control over the gun during repeat rapid firing. The trade off is decreased muzzle velocity resulting in decreased range, accuraccy, and foot pounds of force on impact (less power).
I wasn't arguing for a ban at all. Bans of any type serve no purpose except to make people "feel" good. Feeling good doesn't stop criminals from committing crimes, feel good laws just turn law abiding citizens into criminals if they try to use something they bought legally. The actions of criminals should not result in more burdens being placed on the law abiding, nor should the law abiding be punished for criminals actions.
You're completely right that any gun pointed at someone looks scary, whether its a single shot bolt action, a hunting rifle with a 10rd magazine, or an AK with a 30rd magazine. The only difference between them is the first two, when just laying on a table don't look scary and the last one does so the last was banned purely for its aesthetics because that made people feel safe. "The big scary gun is banned, cumbaya." The fact that its less powerful than common hunting rifles didn't matter because most people didn't know that. The fact that "high capacity" magazines are available for those hunting rifles didn't matter because most people didn't know that. None of the actual facts mattered because most people didn't know them. Politicians played on the fears of the ignorant to push an agenda of taking rights away and making people more dependent on the government for protection from the criminals that the government allows to walk the streets in the first place.
We have repeat felony offenders walking the streets because they were given a minimal sentence through a plea bargain and then released early on parole, but instead of doing something about that our legislators instead pass laws that only affect the law abiding. Instead of putting felons in prison and keeping them there, we let them walk free and turn the law abiding into criminals by banning their legally owned firearms. When felons who served 1/4 of their sentence commit crimes the tool they used is blamed rather than the justice system that let them walk the streets after nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
As to the quoted comment, there was no call anyone to shoot police, the comment he quoted is only a partial quote of a reply to another statement. Anyone can take a partial quote out of context to make it appear to say something it doesn't. The statement he was responding to was ""They say he feared the Obama administration would take his guns. This is definitely a sign of our times. I mean the guy was clearly a nut job."" His reply starts with the question ""How much longer till its not crazy to think that?"" From there he makes the statements that are quoted here, all but one of which are questions that are quite pertinent considering the current political climate. Nobody is discussing whether to resist, the question of how many would if the administration moves to take guns, but again, that is a very pertinent question. How many people will simply roll over and give up (any of) their rights rather than standing up and fighting (not necessarily violently) for them?
Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but also, nobody should be told they have to give up their rights or accept severe limitations to them just so someone else can feel safe. Would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment right to freedom from illegal search and siezure so that the police can just walk into your house (or anyone elses) anytime they want to look for drugs or illegal guns just so your neighbors can feel safe? What about your 14th amendment right to due process? Would you (or anyone else) give that up so others can feel safe? Of course not, but when it comes to the 2nd amendment suddenly it becomes OK to take that right so people can feel safe. Our rights were enumerated in the Constitution for a reason, and it wasn't so that we could "feel safe." It was so that "We the People" (and through us the States) could maintain our independence and freedom from oppression by a government that our founding fathers knew would eventually become corrupt.
A note on the "shrunken calibers" used by the military, the only thing that is "shrunken" is the powder charge packed inside the casing. The bullet and casing are the same size as the standard round sold at sporting goods stores, and the weight difference of the powder per round is so minimal that the weight of the brass , lead, and copper in each round would make it impossible to carry them long before the amount of powder became a factor.
The rifle used by the shooter fires a 7.62x39mm round That round is less powerful than .308 winchester, the most common huntin caliber. Every rifle banned under the assault weapon ban fired a round that was, at most, as powerful as common hunting calibers. As to high capacity magazines, you can buy 30 round magazines for .308 winchester the same as for 7.62x39mm. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with the gun or caliber, only with what manufacturers think they can sell. The guns that were banned under the AWB all had one thing in common, they "looked scary." They didn't fire some super high power round, they didn't have some unheard of ability to send a bullet flying for miles, they weren't capable of blowing up anything shot with them, they just looked scary.
Gun bans make people feel good and thats it. Banning a gun (or guns) isn't going to stop criminals from using them in crimes, they'll just ignore the law the same way they ignored the AWB before. If we actually want to solve the problem we need to tell prosecutors to stop dropping firearm law violaions as part of plea bargains, we need to tell judges to stop giving criminals a slap on the wrist, and we need to tell parole boards to stop letting criminals out early.
Recent Comments
At 5:22 he does a side by side on the semi auto AK and the hunting rifle, he follows that by changing the stock on a rifle, adding a bipod, and a higher capacity magazine in less than 2 minutes using only a screwdriver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
Unless charges were filed and he was found guilty of a prohibiting offense the domestic calls would have no bearing on his legal ability to purchase firearms. As for the marines, he was kicked out in basic so he would have been given an Entry Level Separation (with prejudice) which doesn't prohibit anyone from purchasing firearms.
Read my responses to find the origin of the term "assault rifle." Theres no difference between a semi-auto .308 hunting rifle and a semi-auto 7.62x39mm AK-47 other than the shape of the stock and that is something that anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver can change in 5 minutes.
The Supreme Courts ruling re:individual right didn't include any comments about any kind of rifle, only handguns as the matter before them was the constitutionality of a handgun ban.
Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, every single one of them discussed the inevitable corruption that occurs in any government, they all discussed the need of free peoples to be able to defend themself from a corrupt and oppressive government. The federalist papers would be a good start, as would the letters George Washington wrote to the men at the Constitutional Convention. In their own words, they all said that the people need to be as well armed as their government as a last line of defense against that government.
I'm well read on more than just gun control, I take an active interest in the issues facing the country. Gun control happens to be a hot issue and as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment its one I put extra effort into. As far as the rate of incarcerations, look at some of the things we incarcerate people for as compared to other countries. You won't find people in jail for child support or parking tickets in europe. Disorderly conduct/public disturbance gets a fine and community service in england but it can result in jail time here. I have yet to ever see any stats comparing incarceration rates that doesn't exclude those crimes we incarcerate for that other countries don't, we're putting our apples up next to their oranges.
The assault weapon ban did limit magazine capacities for all magazine fed firearms, not just rifles. It didn't work, it takes only a second or two to change a magazine and that can be done while changing the firearms point of aim. I do agree that a change needs to be made, but adding more laws isn't going to fix the problem. The article I linked has some interesting stats in it, such >>only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.<< Felons are prohibited from having firearms or ammunition, we already have laws banning the posession of even a single round of .22 caliber ammo yet it doesn't stop them from getting it. A law saying nobody can buy this type of gun, or a magazine that holds more than this many rounds is doomed to fail before its ever written.
We incarcerate people for unpaid parking tickets and don't let them out early, but we do let armed robbers out early. We lock up people who have unpaid child support and make them serve their full sentence, but we let rapists go after serving only a third of theirs. That's the first thing we need to fix, stop incarcerating people for trivial stuff and keep those who've committed real crimes behind bars. Our incarceration rate would drop dramatically and the streets would be safer for everyone.
Banning guns, wheter its one type, ones with certain features, or all of them won't stop crime. England is a perfect example. In 1994 their Parliment convinced the people that because they had the lowest general crime rate, violent crime rate, and gun related crime rate in the world there was no need for anyone to own guns and successfully banned ownership of them. Every year since then their general, violent, and gun related crime rates have climbed and as of 2001 you're just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and more likely to be the victim of a gun related crime in england than you are in the US. The AWB had the same result on crimes involving the banned guns here.
Bans simply don't work.
According to the FBI, over 73% of homocides involving guns are committed by males age 16-24 against other males age 16-24 and are related to either involvment in a gang or drugs. Also according to the FBI, over 87% of homocides involving a gun were committed with a handgun. Gun related violence is a symptom, not the cause. Why aren't our legislators working to fix the cause? Why aren't there more special interest/lobbyist organizations trying to combat the cause?
The answer to that is simple, when someone gets killed its easier to blame the gun than to actually deal with the real problem. Blame the gun, ban the gun, and everyone says "I'm so glad those guns are off the street" without anyone ever looking at the person that pulled the trigger.
This shooting is a perfect example. Who cares that he was kicked out of USMC basic for assaulting his superior officer. Who cares that he was active in the white supremecist community. Who cares that he slept with body armor on every night. Who cares that he was conviced there was a global jewish conspiracy running the government. Who cares that he obviously had serious psychological issues that weren't being treated. All that matters is the gun.
When its gang members shooting each other its the same thing. Drug dealers, same thing. Repeat offese felons, again its all about the gun. The gun isn't the problem, the man that pulled the trigger is, but as a society we demonize the object and ignore the perpetrator. Its long past time for that to stop.
>>Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes
By Don Kates
Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.
Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.<<
Maria:
All semi-auto rifles fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster it fires multiple shots. Whether its a hunting rifle or an "assault rifle" makes no difference at all in regards to how rapidly shots can be fired. The grip used is determined by the stock you attach to the firing mechanism. Pistol grip stocks are readily available for "hunting rifles" and monte carlo stocks (no pistol grip) are readily available for "assault rifles." Pistol grip or monte carlo is simply cosmetics and has nothing to do with the actual firing mechanism of the rifle. The Simonov SKS is labeled as an assault rifle, but the standard stock on it does not have a pistol grip. Legacy Sports M-1500 is a hunting rifle that comes from the factory with a pistol grip. On any rifle, whether semi auto or bolt action, a pistol grip changes the angle of the wrist to a natural one which imprives accuracy.
The majority of the rifles labeled "Assault rifles" have solid hardwood stocks. Solid hardwood is not light. They also have primarily machined recievers, meaning they are carved on a CNC lathe from a solid block of metal which is also heavy. Hunting rifles primarily use medium weight wood stocks and recievers stamped from sheet metal making them far lighter than "assault rifles."
Collaspible (and all other) stocks are available for all rifles and are something that is installed on the firing mechanism but has nothing to do with how the rifle fires. You can buy collapsible stocks, rails, forearms, and anything else you want for any rifle. If you want to put a collapsible pistol grip stock with forearm, rails, tactical light, holographic sights, and laser on a remington hunting rifle you can order one from most any supplier of aftermarket stocks. The result will be a rifle that looks just as scary and is more powerful than an "assault rifle" but which nobody would consider banning because its "just a tricked out hunting rifle."
As stated in a previous post, commercially manufactured high capacity magazines are available for nearly any rifle. I have a hunter supply catalog here that has 100rd magazines in it for several hunting rifles that can be bought at any Dicks Sporting Goods store. The standard magazine that comes with "assault rifles" is 10rd, the same as with other magazine fed rifles. Aftermarket magazines are produced by aftermarket manufacturers for nearly all common rifles because there is a market for them, usually a market they created by manufacturing the magazines.
Assault rifle and assault weapon are terms that did not exist in the firearms industry until the Violence Policy Center (owned by the Brady Campaign) used them in a press release. Their own internal memos (which were leaked) state those terms were created to describe any gun that looks like something the military would use to scare those who are not knowledgeable about firearms. They exist only to scare those ignorant of how firearms actually work.
Bob:
You hit the nail on the head.
Ed:
The discussion was guns, not pesticides. Twisting my responses to the discussion of guns by attempting to apply them to something else is disingenuous at best. It's obvious from the next two paragraphs of your post that you have no intention to actually discuss the issue.
There was no subtext in my statements, I do not play those games. I state exactly what I mean, if it is not stated it is not meant. Our founding fathers knew that all government eventually become corrupt and oppressive and enumerated our rights to both protect us from that and ensure that if the need arose the people would have the ability to defend themself from said corrupt government. That is simple fact, nothing more nothing less. My patriotic duty, and that of every american, is to do everything in my/our power to prevent that need from ever arising. Armed resistance is the absolute last resort, and we are still far from needing to resort to it.
"""Then “Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but” You put in a qualifier."""
And yet you choose not to quote the qualifier. Why is that? Why did you choose not to quote the qualification that nobody should be expected to give up their rights as well? You wish to speak of "subtexts," so lets. You're decision to not quote the rest of the statement makes it clear that you feel others should be required to give up their rights just so you can "feel" all warm and fuzzy inside. So which of your rights will you give up so I can have that same "warm fuzzy feeling?" If I pointed out the documented fact that, as per the FBI annual crime report, the number one cause of interpersonal violent crime is religion and demanded the federal government either ban or severely restrict the exercise of religion to prevent those crimes would you say "OK, ill give up my freedom of religion?" Its common sense that if something is the number one cause of a major criminal issue it should be banned or restricted, so would you be willing to go along with that and give up your first amendment right so I can "feel" all warm and fuzzy?
Yes, we do lead the world in incarceration. We also lead the world in apathy. Start looking at the stats in regards to the number of people who are willing to tell the police what they saw, you'll find that as a nation we "don't want to get involved." People see someone committing a crime and just keep on walking like they didn't see a thing. People see someone grab his chest and fall to the ground they don't even bother to dial 911, they just cross the street and continue on their way. Those inclined to commit crimes know this, they know that even if 100 people see them there won't be any witnesses, and even if 1 person does decide to do the right thing he knows that he'll get a slap on the wrist, 3 square meals, food, clothing, shelter, cable tv, and a weight room all on the taxpayers dime. Those inclined to violate the law have no reason to fear the repurcussions of their actions because they know there isn't likely to be any so they have no incentive to not commit the crime. The result is a large number of people incarcerated for short periods of time rather than a smaller number of real criminals incarcerated for longer periods of time.
Nobody in the "gun lobby" threatens legislators, voters do exercise their right to be represented by someone who they feel best represents them by voting for, or not voting for their legislators, so if I (and the rest of the voters) feel someone is not representing me I won't give them my vote. Thats how elections work.
I've made no threats of any kind, they serve no useful purpose. I make no attempt to intimidate anyone, I state simple facts. If someone is intimidated by facts that is their issue, not mine.
Gun control laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes, the '94 AWB proved that. During the 10 years before the ban was passed FBI stats showed that use of the firearms banned under the AWB was decreasing every year. Based on the rate of decrease, in 3 years time their use would have been under .001% of all firearm use in crime. Then the ban was passed and their use increased every year for the first 7 years of the ban before dopping off again. By the time the ban expired it had dropped down to where it was only 3 times higher than it had been in the last year before the ban. Instead of preventing crimes from being committed with those firearms, in increased the crime committed with those firearms. Since the ban expired, the number of crimes committed with those guns has continued to drop, and as of the 2008 FBI crime report it was back down to where it was in 1993. Under the AWB the decrease in use of the banned guns reversed itself for the first 7 years, then went back to decreasing and has continued to decrease since the epiration of the ban. It doesn't take much to figure out why use of rifles by criminals was decreasing before the ban, they're nearly impossible to conceals and unless you're decked out in full military gear its nearly impossible to carry any more ammunition than is in the gun. Having everyone know you're up to no good the moment you walk out your front door is not conducive to success in a life of crime.
I'll assume you aren't familiar with what caliber refers to and explain it (ill also assume lack of knowledge of cartidge construction), please don't take offense to it as this approach isnt intended to belittle, the easiest way to explain it is to use a "no previous knowledge" explanation. A cartidge consists of a bullet (the projectile), a casing (holds the powder charge), a powder charge (gunpowder that when ignited produces gas that expands and propels the bullet down the barrel) and a primer (struck by hammer/firing pin to ignite the powder charge).
7.62x39mm means that the bullet is 7.62 millimeters in diameter and 39mm long. .308 caliber means that the bullet is .308 inches in diameter but doesn't reference the length because with english system calibers a difference in length is referenced using another qualifier such as year of manufacture or designer name. ie .308, 30-06, and 30-30 all use a .308 inch diameter bullet, but the bullets vary in length, the 30-06 was introduced in 1906, the 30-30 in 1930.
That said, the military does not use a smaller bullet, they use a smaller powder charge. Military grade 7.62x39/.308/.223/etc is identical to civilian grade 7.62x39/.308/.223/etc excpept for the amount of powder inside the casing. The military grade uses less powder resulting in lower recoil and less brusing to the shoulder of the person firing the gun as well as more control over the gun during repeat rapid firing. The trade off is decreased muzzle velocity resulting in decreased range, accuraccy, and foot pounds of force on impact (less power).
You're completely right that any gun pointed at someone looks scary, whether its a single shot bolt action, a hunting rifle with a 10rd magazine, or an AK with a 30rd magazine. The only difference between them is the first two, when just laying on a table don't look scary and the last one does so the last was banned purely for its aesthetics because that made people feel safe. "The big scary gun is banned, cumbaya." The fact that its less powerful than common hunting rifles didn't matter because most people didn't know that. The fact that "high capacity" magazines are available for those hunting rifles didn't matter because most people didn't know that. None of the actual facts mattered because most people didn't know them. Politicians played on the fears of the ignorant to push an agenda of taking rights away and making people more dependent on the government for protection from the criminals that the government allows to walk the streets in the first place.
We have repeat felony offenders walking the streets because they were given a minimal sentence through a plea bargain and then released early on parole, but instead of doing something about that our legislators instead pass laws that only affect the law abiding. Instead of putting felons in prison and keeping them there, we let them walk free and turn the law abiding into criminals by banning their legally owned firearms. When felons who served 1/4 of their sentence commit crimes the tool they used is blamed rather than the justice system that let them walk the streets after nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
As to the quoted comment, there was no call anyone to shoot police, the comment he quoted is only a partial quote of a reply to another statement. Anyone can take a partial quote out of context to make it appear to say something it doesn't. The statement he was responding to was ""They say he feared the Obama administration would take his guns. This is definitely a sign of our times. I mean the guy was clearly a nut job."" His reply starts with the question ""How much longer till its not crazy to think that?"" From there he makes the statements that are quoted here, all but one of which are questions that are quite pertinent considering the current political climate. Nobody is discussing whether to resist, the question of how many would if the administration moves to take guns, but again, that is a very pertinent question. How many people will simply roll over and give up (any of) their rights rather than standing up and fighting (not necessarily violently) for them?
Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but also, nobody should be told they have to give up their rights or accept severe limitations to them just so someone else can feel safe. Would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment right to freedom from illegal search and siezure so that the police can just walk into your house (or anyone elses) anytime they want to look for drugs or illegal guns just so your neighbors can feel safe? What about your 14th amendment right to due process? Would you (or anyone else) give that up so others can feel safe? Of course not, but when it comes to the 2nd amendment suddenly it becomes OK to take that right so people can feel safe. Our rights were enumerated in the Constitution for a reason, and it wasn't so that we could "feel safe." It was so that "We the People" (and through us the States) could maintain our independence and freedom from oppression by a government that our founding fathers knew would eventually become corrupt.
A note on the "shrunken calibers" used by the military, the only thing that is "shrunken" is the powder charge packed inside the casing. The bullet and casing are the same size as the standard round sold at sporting goods stores, and the weight difference of the powder per round is so minimal that the weight of the brass , lead, and copper in each round would make it impossible to carry them long before the amount of powder became a factor.
Gun bans make people feel good and thats it. Banning a gun (or guns) isn't going to stop criminals from using them in crimes, they'll just ignore the law the same way they ignored the AWB before. If we actually want to solve the problem we need to tell prosecutors to stop dropping firearm law violaions as part of plea bargains, we need to tell judges to stop giving criminals a slap on the wrist, and we need to tell parole boards to stop letting criminals out early.