General

Let’s Redirect That Anger

Laurie_dann profile picture

While the Nation teeters on the precipice of the fiscal cliff, certain lawmakers would rather spend their time and effort dealing with feel-good politics that will have no effect rather than dealing with the Nation’s business. If you want to be angry, let’s keep it focused where it belongs—solidly aimed at those who intend to pass legislation that will not fix any perceived problem while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

What we are experiencing today is just the beginning. Gun owners are second-class citizens in the eyes of lawmakers and the media. We are stuck in a twisted time warp to the political correctness of the 1990s. And we are not going to wake from this nightmare anytime soon.

Diane Feinstein (no, I am not a General and therefore see no reason to honor the hypocrite with a title) is leading the charge with a new, more restrictive Assault Weapons ban. Fortunately, Feinstein knows a little something about guns. She has concealed weapons permits in at least California and Washington D.C. and who knows where else. Oh yes, Diane understands why ‘she’—a member of Congress, eligible for Secret Service protection, who works in a building guarded by armed capital police—has a need to also carry a weapon for personal protection. However, when it comes to the rank and file citizen she makes every attempt to limit our rights.

AR-15 AK47 leaning against a barnwood fence
From the outside and AR-15 or AK47 may look like an assault weapon, but it is the internal parts that determine the guns capabilities.

What is an Assault Rifle?

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least these characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

  • It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (for example, a buttstock; not a machine pistol)
  • It must be capable of selective fire
  • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
  • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt
  • It must be capable of having a firing range of 300 meters (over 1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles despite frequently being incorrectly labeled as such by politicians and media. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles such as the AR-15 (based on the M16 rifle) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as it is not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

Are Feinstein’s Actions Anything more than Feel-good Politics?

Banning certain guns by name or particular characteristics is proven to fail and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the gun is an assault rifle. I remember when California (Feinstein’s home state) banned the Intratec Tec-9. It was back on the street a short time later dubbed the TEC-DC9 (DC standing for Designed for California). About the only difference was a small change to the bolt design, but even without it, the TEC-9 would not have qualified as an assault weapon.

Feinstein and her anti-gun lackeys also take issue with certain military characteristics. In California, you could own an SKS, but not ones with any combination of three or more identified military style characteristics, bayonet lug, thumb-hole stocks and so on. Later, it was changed to be more restrictive and banned other characteristics such as detachable magazines and models outfitted with, or the potential to mount, a grenade launcher.

I guess you have to throw your—already illegal in all 50 states—grenades by hand in California. Now does anyone ‘need’ a grenade launcher? I doubt it. But if that was the litmus test, I can think of a lot of things we don’t ‘need’ but are not illegal. Senator and Congressmen may top that list…

High Capacity Magazine Ban

This is one of the two pieces of legislation that I believe has a shot of passing. Again, it is feel good politics. Limiting magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds does nothing to limit a shooter’s ability to quickly put rounds down range. Smaller capacity magazines can be switched in a couple of seconds. Anyone with a few simple tools can build two 10-round magazines into a 20-rounder within 30 minutes—an hour if they want it to look pretty.

But would this make us, or our kids, any safer? Reduce the speed at which rounds can be fired? I offer Cheaper Than Dirt’s own sponsored shooter Jerry Miculek as exhibit A.

In this video, Jerry is shown shooting 12 rounds from a revolver in less than 3 seconds—and that required a reload.

By the same token, Jerry set another record by shooting 12 rounds from a revolver, blindfolded and drawing from a holster in just over 5 seconds—keeping all 12 rounds on a man-sized target from 30 feet. And on his belt? It was full of speed loaders. How many rounds could he accurately put down range in under a minute? Just doing the math with Jerry blindfolded, he could easily shoot 30 rounds in a minute from a revolver. Using his stats from the first scenario Jerry could shoot well over 100 rounds a minute from a revolver. Hmmm, I believe it is a revolver on Feinstein’s California CCW. Does that mean she really favors a weapon that could…

It really is worth a look at Jerry’s title and records such as shooting six shots each from 10 different revolvers in about 17 seconds. That is 60 rounds in 17 seconds or over 200 rounds a minute. Check out Jerry’s page at http://www.jerrymiculek.com/titles.html.

Another myth being bandied about by politicians is that Modern Sporting Rifles such as the AR-15 shoots the same round as the military. I’ll cover that topic in a post about the .223 vs. 5.56mm soon.

What can be Done?

This is a much more in depth question. The Secret Service looked into school shootings back in 2002—during the first assault weapon ban— and did not conclude military-style guns as the problem. The Secret Service warned against profiling and came to the conclusion that there was not a single trait or type of person that could be used to identify a potential shooter. Any such list would list or attempt would identify too many people to be useful.

Interestingly, researchers noted that these perpetrators do not simply snap and commit these heinous acts. They plan. They acquire or manufacture weapons. These children take a long, considered, public path toward violence.

Many of the shooters told Secret Service investigators that alienation or persecution drove them to violence. According to the United States Secret Service, instead of looking for traits, it urged adults to ask about behavior:

Laurie_dann profile picture
Laurie Dann Wasserman—an American spree killer who shot and killed one boy and wounded two girls and three boys at a Winnetka, Ill. elementary school. She then took a family hostage and shot another man before killing herself.
  1. What has this child said?
  2. Do they have grievances?
  3. What do their friends know?
  4. Do they have access to weapons?
  5. Are they depressed or despondent?

No limits on video games, banning of high-capacity magazines or other ridiculous knee-jerk reactions were recommended. As I noted earlier, it isn’t hard to modify a couple, or even several, low-capacity magazines to manufacture high-capacity magazines. The individuals who perpetrate these heinous acts are the very personality type that would take the time to create such a work around to circumvent the law to create the tools necessary for an evil deed.

Are Guns Even the Biggest Threat?

Let’s look at the two biggest domestic terrorist acts in U.S. history. On October 19, 1995, two bombers were convicted of killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. The availability of guns was not the issue, but guns were not responsible for the deaths either. However, it was a gun that proved to be the fatal flaw in the Oklahoma City bomber’s plan.

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Where are the calls to ban or regulate racing fuel, rental trucks and fertilizer? Those were the instruments used to kill 168 people, not a gun.

That was the worst act of terrorism on American soil until the dark events on the morning of September 11, 2001 when terrorists with box cutters gained control of commercial airplanes, crashing into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon killing thousands of people.

When will the lawmakers and anti-gunners in this country realize the evil that has attacked this country in the past, and threatens to do so again in the future, cannot be stopped by the passage of yet another law? We have over 20,000 gun laws in the country now. Will 20,001 or 100,001 laws that only the law-abiding citizens will heed really make a difference?

Share your thoughts with us in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (191)

  1. Hines,

    You really should stop looking down your nose at people like you do. Its not only very rude but it can hurt your neck. And, if you do it in a rain storm you will probably drown. I really do appreciate your comments Hines because when you do it allows others to see how deluded people like you. Probably a good bet no one in your family has ever served in this countrys armed forces.

    Its also very tragic that you chose to breed and have kids. It must be hard on your grandchildren to have to let people know they are related to you. If your grandkids have to settle fights with guns then it is only because it is what you have taught them to do. Its sad how liberals have so degraded our society that it is now acceptable in many places to just go around shooting people. You Hines should be ashamed of yourself for promoting that lifestyle.

    And you try to speak as an educated man but easily try to deflect from the truth at every turn. That indicates to me that you are a man of very low and weak moral character. You speak as though the Supreme Court is an all knowing politically neutral group of people which you and I both know is not correct. If it was, it would be full of strict constitutionalists which it definitely is not. If it were we would have a court that based its decisions on the actual words of the Constitution and not by inventing an inference. The Constitution is not a living growing document nor is it simple a piece of worthless paper for you to wipe your butt with. In a free country we have the right to protest a gov’ts attempt to take away our rights even by an activist Supreme Court.

    Gun violence in America is tolerated by politicians (mostly democrats) who refuse to demand the police and courts punish people for violating the well over 15,000 anti gun laws currently on the books. Even Obama said after Aurora that its time “we” stop tolerating gun violence. I wanted to ask him if he had a mouse in his pocket when he said “we” because no one I know has ever tolerated it. How about enforcing those 15,000 laws strange as that might sound! Stop trying to make criminals of most of the law abiding citizens of America! Strangely even police states have a high rate of gun crime so how is outlawing them here going to work out?

    You seem to want the nanny state for some odd reason especially since you can’t point out to it ever succeeding in any country its been tried in. I do have distaste for a gov’t that wishes to have complete control of its populace right down to whether or not we can drink a soda with our pizza.

    Have you sold that rifle yet? Of course you havent because you are like a typical example of a soviet communist party member – some people are more equal than others and thats how you see yourself. You truly believe you are our better (more equal) which, you certainly are not. People like you who want to throw away my and others Constitutional Rights are no better than the stuff I have accidentally stepped in while walking in a Barnyard.

  2. IT TALKS LIKE A TROLL, WALKS LIKE A TROLL, HEY IT EVEN SMELLS LIKE A TROLL. YEP, THATS RIGHT…….. HINES YOU’RE STILL A TROLL AND YOU CANT STAND BEING FOUND OUT!!!! SLITHER AWAY WORM , WE SEE YOU NOW!!!!!!

  3. It is difficult for me to comprehend your vision of the second amendment. You speak of it as if it is written by some divine being and dropped into the Constitution unsullied by human hands. It is no different from any other Constitutional provision. It was crafted by people and included in a document that also contains provisions detailing how it will be implemented, enforced, and interpreted. If Congress were to pass restrictions on gun ownership that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and the Administrative Branch proceeded to enforce them, then your Constitutional rights would be violated. If Congress passes restrictions, the Administrative Branch enforces them, and the Supreme Court upholds them then your Constitutional rights have not been violated.

    There are only nine votes that determine whether an act of Congress (or a state legislature) complies with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Neither you, Mr. Cooper, nor you, rsun, nor I are among the nine.

    None of us know which laws will be passed in Congress, but there already are laws restricting gun ownership among the states. If the Supreme Court declares those laws to be unconstitutional then they cannot be enforced. If the Supreme Court upholds them then they are constitutional and, just like any other law, defying them is criminal.

    The United States was not created as an anarchy. Its laws are enforceable and we rightfully expect our fellow citizens to obey them. If the law of the land continues to tolerate the proliferation of more and more deadly guns, then I must abide by it, disobey it and become a criminal, change it, or leave the country. If constitutional restrictions on gun ownership are imposed, then you have the same choices.

    There are millions of Americans who believe that our government cannot prohibit them from selling and using drugs, force them to pay taxes or serve in the military, restrict what they do on their property, exercise eminent domain, criminalize sex with minors, prevent secession from the Union, forbid discrimination, enter into trade agreements and treaties, prohibit sanctioned prayer in schools, and probably many more things beyond my awareness. Your beliefs about gun ownership land you squarely in that group.

    It is revealing that in your world I cannot be simply a fellow gun owner who disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution. Instead I must be something much less – a troll. I am, of course, actually just the person I have described myself to be. The main differences between us are our views of government and my distaste for a society where my grandchildren’s safety depends on who wins the gunfight in the hallway and where the bullets go.

    As much as I will miss you, there is no reason to continue these discussions. The near term end of this issue for me will be decisions by the Supreme Court. I hope they are for you, too.

  4. Hines,
    Guns are just your Issue de Jour and tomorrow you will have a new one which you will claim to be an expert on. Trolls will be Trolls and you can’t help what you are. Still, sites like this need Trolls like you to post to remind everyone of the type of people out there that want to deny them their rights.

    I don’t think you’re part of a large group writing or a secret organization etc. You remind me of the not as smart as they think they are people in college blathering on and on trying to sound intelligent and looking down their nose at others they feel are their intellectual inferiors. News flash you only come off as a liberal hack for the democrat party and a whiner. You lie and make things up

    BTW Did you ever sell that rifle you claimed to have that you want us to save you from shooting again?

    And as far as young, well I’m way past that. My Violent and selfish goals? I’m not a violent person by nature but 10 years in the military and another 20 years working in support of and seeing the Middle East and other not so nice places in the world I do know what’s worth fighting for and what this country will turn into if we don’t protect our rights – God and Constitutionally given. Oh, hope I didn’t spoil your day by saying “God”.

    There are many things that kill more people in America than guns that aren’t Constitutionally protected and I don’t see you going after them. The ultimate goal here isn’t to take peoples guns away, it’s to remove a key block of the Constitution to make the document irrelevant. And when the foundation and the document are gone they will be gone forever as will this country. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to get back. Move to North Korea so you can have your police state and a gov’t to tell you what to do every day. Be happey. We will be happy for you.

  5. DB! Welcome back. I cannot believe how clever and insightful you, rsun, and the others have been. Indeed, I am not a person at all. We are another government plot against you. We are, in fact, a secret cabal of government agents tasked by President Obama himself to seek out gun enthusiasts on arcane web sites and fool them into thinking we actually are a retired shooter. Our specific assignment is to discover the intricacies of your most cogent arguments so that we can turn them against you in subliminal advertisements imbedded in reruns of “Gunsmoke.” Ultimately our goal is to confiscate all of your guns, knives, clubs, and any stones larger than one-half inch in diameter (50 caliber) then subjugate you with overwhelming attacks led by brown-shirted Obama youth.

    Sadly, we now must report to the President that our cover is blown. We are trying to replace ourselves with even more nefarious operatives zeroing in on you, in particular. We obviously will have to be much more careful in the future if we hope to fool you. We are hopeful, though. You can see that we have been successful elsewhere. The people of England, France, Germany, Norway, Holland, Sweden, South Korea, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, and so many other countries cower in fear as their governments prepare to sweep in to slaughter them. Until that time tens of thousands of them are being killed each year by gangs of criminals preying on their unarmed, helpless condition.

    If only they lived in the United States where they could be safe from violence, protected by your view of the second amendment and 300 million guns.

    I hope you are young, and that sometime in years to come you will grow into a more realistic view of the world and develop less violent and selfish goals. If not, I hope at least that you neither suffer nor cause harm, and remember that the framers of the Constitution also took the time to define and prohibit treason.

  6. KM Hines,
    Have you sold that gun yet? You keep begging us to take it away so you wont shoot it again. And why should the gov’y track law abiding Citizens weapons? How about taking guns from criminals. Odd concept for you isnt it. Punish Criminals.

    Have you sold your car yet? You have no constitutional right to own or drive it. Automobile wrecks kill over 2000 children anually and maim another 250,000! They are literally children butchering machines!

    As far as disarming the populace goes. In 1932 Stalin murdered over 10 million Ukrainians. Stalin had disarmed the citizens of Russia and the Soviet Union after the revolution so no one could resist the genocide which killed 1/3rd of the population of Ukraine in slightly over a year. If the people had been armed, this could not have happened. After WW2 no Soviet leader tried to commit genocide again because the populace was armed to the teath and battle hardened. The Gov’t was afraid of the people.

    Yes Rsun, KMHINES is a troll.

  7. You live in a horrible world. You are surrounded by plots and deceptions, lethal threats and pending doom. Like the ultra-rich and their money, you want to hold on to all of your guns regardless of the cost others must pay. I have met you. I have worked with you and gone to church with you and lived next to you.

    I am a sixty-six year old retiree. I am on this site because this is where I sometimes buy ammunition, and I do not represent any group. In fact, I am much more of a loner than a joiner. I have been a shooter all of my life, but shooting never has been my life and never will be. I am intelligent, well educated, and a good communicator. I am on this forum to express my point of view, just like you.

    As a human being I am appalled by the number of deaths caused each year in America by guns. Each of those thousands of deaths devastate the lives of yet more thousands of people. As a citizen, I am concerned about the plethora of rhetoric coming from some groups of gun owners that they are amassing weapons and ammunition to defy the U.S. government. When, and why, will they begin their killing? Who will be their targets?

    I hope that our legislators can agree on some measures to reduce the number of violent deaths we endure each year. I a willing to participate in an effective solution even if doing so means that my own access to some weapons is restricted. I favor universal background checks, the effective tracking of weapons, and a ban on center fire semiautomatic rifles and carbines using detachable magazines. You obviously are free to have your own preferences.

  8. I have seen this on multiple forums and see the same pattern, a very concerted effort by a seemingly solitary individual to negate all the arguments to the contrary, seemingly on a noble quest to right all wrongs. My suspicioun is that this is not an individual but a group that is involved here using the same name and email on these sites, and then take turns to try and kill pro-gun speech anywhere, that way there is rarely fatigue that you will see from the rest of us, the only way to beat them is to learn to recognize them quickly wherever they appear and not engage these worms when you find them and then warn everyone on that discussion to do the same, THEY HATE BEING IGNORED!!!!

  9. Among the restriction being proposed in California is a ban on hollow point ammunition. Now Wisconsin has joined in with a proposed ban on hollow point or fragmenting ammunition.
    That’s hunting ammunition.
    No, they aren’t going to come after your hunting guns. Just the Military look-a-likes.
    Yeah. Sure.
    I got some nice waterfront property in Florida I can sell real cheap, too.

    I agree, rsun. KM Hines exhibits all the attributes of a troll. I especially like how he continually tries to put words into my mouth. If I state that certain of the Founding Fathers wrote of their beliefs, and quote their writings, he tries to construe that as me calling for armed insurrection. He’s full of opinions, but has backed none of them with fact. I can’t remember him quoting one fact, or a source for it. He’s full of BS. It was amusing for a while, but I’ve better things to do with my time.

  10. Hi, MacBeth. Hi, MacBeth. Missed you. Couple of your tests out of the way. Indeed, the 5.56 was not chosen for its lethality. That ended up being a side effect of its ballistics. Second, I assumed that the legendary “helmet test” was true. If not, I was wrong. I still am a shooter, and a good one. Third, a representative government selected by the electorate is a democracy, albeit not a direct one. You are right about the “rule of the mob,” which was a second aim of the Constitution. It is the Constitution and not the representative form that prevents it, though.

    Now, on to the discussion. The Constitution was written by representatives chosen by the people in accordance with the customs of the time. It was adopted using procedures selected by the representatives. It is enforced by the federal administrative agencies, and by courts. An action is legal if it is allowed by the Constitution, enacted by the legislature, enforced by the administration, and prosecuted by the courts.

    In our representative democracy even the Constitution is subject to the will of the people.Over time we have broadened those that are protected by the Constitution and those who may participate in the process of governing. We have revoked and replaced some provisions of the Constitution that reflected the prejudices and shortcomings of our forebears.

    For more than 200 years (admittedly a mere moment even among modern nations) we have strengthened our democracy, weathering several rebellions, a civil war, and a great depression. Now we have thousands of people hoarding ammunition and buying the most deadly weapons available to them for the express purpose of resisting that government.

    Have you thought about what that means? An unknown number of militias with unknown membership armed with unknown weapons, each with its own agenda and its own trigger for violence exist here. Who shall decide that our government is oppressive and that armed resistance is justified? And against whom will their aggression be directed? Shall it be justified for a secret militia to kill those who commit abortions? Or hire undocumented aliens? Or advocate for gay rights?

    Perhaps there will be left wing militias to kill those who oppose abortions or persecute Hispanics or worship in fundamentalist churches. Do you think that a nation as diverse as this one will suddenly agree on how and when to start killing our policemen and soldiers and fellow Americans?

    If you believe that a heavily armed assortment of secret militias are a safeguard of democracy then look at all of those countries whose tribes or religions or sects or ethnicities have killed one another for decades, armed to the teeth and free from any meaningful government intervention.

    If I must trust either my government or you to be well enough armed to subjugate me, then I will choose my government. If I must trust either my country or you to have my well being and my freedom at heart, then I will trust my government. I will help my government protect me against you, and you against me, by encouraging it to stop the efforts of so many to become so deadly.

    You appear to be interested in supporting a democracy only as long as if conforms to your morality and your ideas and your values. Otherwise, you reserve the right to overcome the rule of law with the barrel of a gun. I reserve the right to demand that my government prevent you from doing that. I believe that the current laws and provisions of the Constitution allow that with room to spare. If not, then I and millions of others will campaign for an amendment to the Constitution so that it is allowed.

    That is what “legal” means, MacBeth.

  11. KM Hines
    Been sick- still sick for that matter, but better. That you are wrong, I have no doubt. By that I mean in your apparent assumption that if you meekly comply with the current demands, that it will be the end, that the gun grabbers will be satisfied. I offer this, from the Daily Kos, for your consideration:

    How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

    by sporks

    It’s nice that we’re finally talking about gun control. It’s very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I’m glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I’m supportive of that, it won’t solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

    Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don’t want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza’s assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal “favorite”) 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

    Again, I like that we’re talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

    The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

    Link to rest of article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#

    In addition, you make several statement about the 5.56 NATO round that again make me doubt you real knowledge of firearms. Military test using the old steel helmet/fiberglass liner showed the 5.56 NATO would bounce off the liner at 600 meters. In contrast, the 7.62 NATO would not only penetrate the liner, it would go through the head inside, and penetrate the liner and steel helmet on the other side at the same rang.

    The modified .223 Remington was not chosen for its lethality. That is a common mistake made by people with little or no military experience. Post WWII military doctrine is based on the theory that is bettor, tactically, to wound the enemy, than to kill him. The 5.56 NATO was selected with this theory in mind, based on the fact that it would be a reduced lethality round, wounding more than it killed. The cartridge, in its original, civilian form, was, in fact, designed for shooting gophers and woodchucks

    This nation, despite your statements is not, and never has been a Democracy, it is a Republic. The form of Government was specifically chosen to protect the rights of the individual from the will of the masses, or as the Founding Fathers, “the tyranny of the mob” The Constitution was made by a Republican Government, not a Democratic Government.

    And which amendment has been made to authorize the actions you advocate?

    What legal action? That is the critical question. Do you assume that any action the Government takes is legal, just because they say so? If so, I suggest you go ahead and put on your collar. Do you seriously believe the government can do no wrong? Tell that to all the former residents of Manzanita. Tell it the Apache, Sioux, Cherokee, and Creek.

  12. Hi, MacBeth. Let me get a few things out of the way. First, I do not use the term “assault rifle” although I consider our use of semantics to avoid real debate less than helpful. I refer to center fire, semiautomatic rifles and carbines fed by detachable magazines. I know that those less familiar with firearms are grasping for a more convenient term than a long and inconvenient phrase, but none have arisen. Those of us who use them know which firearms make killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time feasible and how they do it. Sometime I may have to alter my preference for a limit only on center fire weapons if we continue to develop more powerful rim fires, and add clip fed weapons if those become common again. Perhaps we could call them semiautomatic versions of assault weapons, or SAVs, although I would be reluctant to add yet another acronym to our lexicon. If we as gun owners and users were really interested in rational arguments then we would help to create common terms rather than using their absence as a distraction.

    Second, my purpose is not to prevent murder. Were that my motive I would be much more interested in a ban on handguns through a Constitutional amendment. Our Constitution guarantees that we will, in large part, be free. Freedom often is more dangerous than but much preferable to its alternatives. My purpose is to reduce the number of incidents that involve a single gunman killing or wounding seventy people in theater or twenty-six people in a school before police can respond. The number of these shootings that have occurred is small, but they are becoming more common. I would love to see my country have a murder rate as low as most of the developed world, but the factors that cause our high death toll go far beyond the scope of this debate.

    If I have to defend myself against an armed opponent I would rather he have almost anything other than an SAV (sorry, but I don’t want to continue typing long phrases). Its rate of fire, reloading capability, accuracy, and penetration make either retreat or attack poor alternatives. It would not matter whether I was trying to defend myself with my bare hands or my 1911, I would likely be the loser in such a fight. Add the possibility that I would be facing not one but two, or three, or four opponents each with many 30-round magazines and wearing body armor and the scenario becomes outrageous.

    I do not want every maladjusted teenager with an urge to commit suicide to have the ability to take dozens of people with him. I do not want our country to experience more and more of the hideous events that have occurred in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown. I do not want the rest of the world to see America as a bastion of senseless violence. I bought and use an M15A4. It is the semiautomatic version of an iconic American weapon. In its military version it is the longest serving battle rifle in our history. It is an engineering marvel and a testimony to American innovation. I enjoy shooting it. I use it responsibly, and I store it in a place inaccessible to all but the most well equipped thieves. I know, though, that if I can purchase it then so can thousands of people who will use and store it less responsibly. Even worse, I know that people who intend to use it for mayhem also will have access to it. Background checks are worthless when being 99% correct about a person’s intentions is not nearly good enough.

    You have criticized me correctly for not citing the source I quoted in my last comment. I did not think it important since I was not asserting its validity, but merely stating that there are other opinions. Also, I pointed out that neither our opinions nor the opinions of those we quote have any bearing on the eventual decision regarding the breadth of the Court’s Heller decision. The New York laws guarantee that the question will be answered by the Supreme Court, probably very soon. I might point out that if enough Americans come to view gun ownership and use too dangerous then the Constitution will not protect it. The original framers of the Constitution saw no reason to allow those who did not own property, blacks, or women the right to vote, and had no problem with slavery. Counting the Bill of Rights we have amended the Constitution twenty-seven times.

    You asked me to address the power of the .223/5.56. You and I both know that it has far less muzzle energy than either the .30/06 or the 7.62mm NATO (.308) that it replaced. We also know that such a comparison is meaningless. It is a deadly round (why else would we use it in military weapons) that depends on its high velocity and instability on striking flesh to create devastating wounds. It is effective at medium ranges (500 yards), and will penetrate a military helmet at 1,000 yards. The most common bullet weights are 55 grains to 75 grains, although weights outside these limits are available (e.g., a 36 grain version used for varminting). Its most desirous quality in full automatic and semiautomatic weapons is its very light recoil. Neither the 30/06 nor the 7.62 were usable in fully automatic battle rifles. The 5.56 was. Another advantage of the 5.56 is its size and weight. Soldiers (or anyone else) can carry many more rounds of 5.56 than either of its predecessors.

    You have commented that mass killings occur in “free fire oops I mean gun free” zones. First, shopping malls are not gun free zones. Second, anyone who believes that people who carry concealed weapons actually care that a theater is listed as gun free is delusional, and no one knows where armed guards or off duty police officers may be. A person willing to go into a crowd today and open fire has to know that some of those people may be armed. Most of these mass murderers do not expect to leave the scene of their crime alive. They know that they will be better armed and better prepared than their victims, and that they will have the advantage of surprise.

    You asked about rights and their limits. You seem to have a strange view of rights, seeing them as something apart from the consensus of the people around you. The Constitution was made by a democratic government, and can be changed or even nullified by that same democratic government. The process for doing so is, in fact, contained in that very Constitution. In short, it is not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. We did so to free slaves (a taking of “property” without compensation), to extend the right to votes to women, to limit the number of terms a president may serve, and even to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

    As for existing rights, I have the right to travel freely in the U.S., but may not do so by driving a car unless I receive a license from the government to do so. My right to free speech not only prevents me from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, but also does not include libel or perjury. Many of my rights are forsaken if I am convicted of a felony regardless of how minor and even if I did not commit the crime. My freedom of religion does not include the right to human sacrifice or cruelty to animals. I cannot decide for myself to use alcohol in public or to use controlled substances at all. I cannot sell or buy controlled substances even though we live in a society of free enterprise.

    You probably agree that the right to keep and bear arms does not imply an unrestricted access by every person to all weapons to be carried to any location. We already restrict and track the ownership of fully automatic weapons, and do not allow people to bear such arms as weaponized viruses, poison gases, land mines, antiaircraft devices and nuclear materials. Criminals and terrorists may not own guns, nor those with a history of domestic abuse. You may not carry your weapon into a courtroom, into Congress or the White House or into many other government buildings.

    I might summarize by saying that even though our Declaration of Independence declares that certain rights are endowed by our creator, our legal system recognizes only those rights created by ourselves in accordance with agreed upon processes. We cannot use our guns to prevent the people from adopting and enforcing the laws by which they will live. While I agree that you have not directly threatened an armed uprising, you maintain that is the purpose of your right to bear arms.

    You have compared your ability to resist the U.S. military to the Taliban. Even if that were a good comparison, it would not be a good argument. We have maintained a military presence in Afghanistan for ten years, and have killed thousands of Taliban and Quaida fighters. We have lost few by comparison. Furthermore, we are in a foreign country and devote only those lives and resources we care to lose to our effort. An armed uprising in the U.S. will be more comparable to a civil war. The U.S. troops will not quit until they win, because they will be fighting for our own country. Millions of Americans who do not agree with armed resistance to a legal action will aid them in their efforts.

    I hope that even if you continue to support the wide distribution of “center fire semiautomatic rifles and carbines using detachable magazines” (I am open to any term you care to suggest for such weapons) you will lend your voice to those who want universal background checks and effective ways to track weapons.

    Thanks again for your willingness to discuss this issue rather than demonize those with whom you disagree. It speaks well of you and the position you represent.

  13. KM Hines
    I have read, and reread my posts. I still see know where I have advocated taking up arms. I have stated that the ability to do so was one of the primary reasons for the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Right. That’s why I quoted a Founding Father. If you had read Heller, you would know that the Justices themselves quoted Founding Fathers.
    I did state that it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of an irregular force to resist, and in many cases overcome them. If you think that statement is wrong, by all means, tell the Taliban. You might even be able to be a few old SS Troopers that would be interested. I do not think we are close to such a situation, although some, on both sides of the aisle, seem to be dedicated to provoking it.
    Quoting a source without citing it, by the way, is a poor way of carrying on a debate.
    The majority of the quotes that you decry my using, by the way, were quotes from the Heller decision, and were therefore quotes from those you say we must depend on to make the decisions. Either we go by what the court says, or we don’t. All of the sources I quoted were cited, by the way.

    “A belief that we have a moral right to resist enforcement of those laws with a force of arms is an abandonment of our democracy (a republic is a form of democracy)and respect for our Constitution” First, a minor point. A republic is not necessarily a democracy, but I take your meaning. The point is, the Founding Fathers included provision s to protect the ability to do so in case, or rather, in their view, that democracy broke down into tyranny. That also brings up why we have a Democratic Republic, rather than a true Democracy. Democracies can, and have been as tyrannical as any depot. Adams fear of the people forming a true democracy and emulating the French was one of the primary reasons he signed the “Sedition and Alien Act” of 1799. The French Revolution is a prime example of Democracy becoming tyranny, then a dictatorship.
    Do I feel Obama has come dangerously close to becoming a dictator? Yes. I also felt Bush the younger also did. The Patriot Act and various NDAAs walk all over the Bill of Rights. Both essential made laws by Executive order. Made laws by dictate. What’s the definition of a dictator?
    You state you have a “vast knowledge” of firearms. If so, define Assault Rifle. Tell me about the tremendous power of the .223 Remington/5.56MM NATO cartridge.
    Also, while it really isn’t germain to the discussion, why don’t you post some figures to show why these “terrible” weapons are singled out, say instead of baseball bats and hammers. I’ll break my own rule, here, and let you look up the data, I think it would be a good experience for you.
    You say you are not a troll. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Sol Alinsky would love you though. He loved people that were willing to compromise their principles. He knew he could always count on them to lose
    Do you accept those types of restrictions on your other rights? And don’t drag in the canard of Holmes’ “cry fire in a crowded theater”, it’s not comparable. You are still allowed to carry the means of shouting fire into the theater. Yet you are denied the right to carry the means to defend yourself.
    Remember, all the mass killings actually have two things in common that you seem to be ignoring. They all happen in “free fire’ oops, I mean “Gun Free Zones”, and they all involve drugs, psychiatric medications that have been shown to cause psychotic, violent reactions in a number of patients. Buy the way, the fallacy of the “Gun Free Zones” is shown by the number of shootings that happen in them

    Be sure, before you rush to give up a right, that you really know what you are doing.

  14. Thank you, MacBeth. Although your arguments are flawed, they are arguments rather than name-calling. That represents true progress. For the record, I am no “troll.” I very likely have more experience with more kinds of weapons than the vast majority of people who frequent this blog or who make purchases at Cheaper Than Dirt. Neither you nor I are Supreme Court Justices and so our opinion regarding gun ownership and use has no legal weight. Neither do the opinions of those we quote. The test of whether limits on center fire, semiautomatic rifles and carbines fed by removable magazines meet the requirements of Heller undoubtedly will soon follow the recently adopted laws in New York.

    I, and others, believe you are wrong about the weapons addressed by those laws. Consider the following:

    “How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws

    How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

    The gun control law at issue in the Heller case — a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia — was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court’s ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

    And, although the Supreme Court’s decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

    Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
    Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in “sensitive” places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
    Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
    Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,'” but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
    Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
    Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

    Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.”

    The point of my comments is not whether one opinion or another is valid. Rather, it is that we have a process for making those decisions established in our Constitution and defended by generations of Americans. Regardless of how vehemently one or more of us may disagree with the decisions made in compliance with that process, it creates the laws of our land and provides the framework within which we exist together. A belief that we have a moral right to resist enforcement of those laws with a force of arms is an abandonment of our democracy (a republic is a form of democracy)and respect for our Constitution. In fact, it tears down the very document you rely on to own any guns at all.

    Surely you do not want your right to keep and bear arms to rely on your ability to win a gunfight with the U.S. military. Surely you do not want everyone who disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling to grab a gun to support their position.

    I have made a personal decision that I cannot support the continuing proliferation of weapons like my M15A4 in our society. I do not believe that they can be made freely available to rightful owners without also making them available to heinous criminals. However, I would never consider acting criminally to deprive you of such weapons if Congress and the Supreme Court granted you access to them.

    Defend what you see as your right to own what-the-politicians-and-the-public-call-assault-weapons. Please reconsider, though, the notion that decisions to the contrary justify an armed response. Americans do not respond well to such threats, and you would not survive long using such tactics.

    Oh, and if you still are reading, bye Frank.

  15. DB Cooper
    Sounds like another case of a convicted felon out with a gun he’s not supposed to have.
    I bet he gets away with it, since selective enforcement seems to be another hallmark of the Progressive mindset.

  16. These are the kind of people trying to take our rights away from us.

    A Virginia lawmaker who drew gasps from his colleagues when he brandished a borrowed AK-47 during an anti-gun speech Thursday was found guilty in 2002 of committing a vicious 1999 assault, was sanctioned for legal misconduct while prosecuting a rape case, spent six months in jail for contempt of a federal court, and saw his law license revoked in 2003.

    Democratic Delegate Joseph Morrissey brought the rifle to the floor of the House of Delegates to demonstrate how easy it is to carry firearms in Virginia. Republican Delegate Todd Gilbert interrupted Morrissey’s speech to ask him to remove his finger from inside the gun’s trigger-guard — a basic gun-safety practice.

    “I don’t think you should be able to possess an assault rifle,” Morrissey told ABC News on Friday.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/20/va-lawmaker-who-brandished-ak-47-during-legislative-session-was-disbarred-following-assault-death-threat/#ixzz2IcU0owft

  17. Frank.
    Thank you. I suspect KM Hines is actually a gun control troll and agent provocateur, with a totally closed mind, but I don’t consider the effort lost if people with open minds also read the posts

  18. KM Hines wrote:
    “Your speculations about gun rights are just that — speculations. They are not supported by Supreme Court decisions, by history, or by existing laws.”
    Have you read Heller? MacDonald? Any of the other decisions they cite? This statement is from the Heller decision “The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms” If the right was ancient at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, then it would have to predate them.
    Then there is this, also from Heller “The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.”
    A ban on semi-automatic weapons would also be a “prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

    Heller also contains this statement “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

    Continuing in Heller, the court stated “This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth mendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed”

    Also from Heller “And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”

    But wait- there were other considerations than “No taxation without representation”?

    The Court goes on to say in Heller “That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
    standing army to suppress political opponents” There’s that word, and from the Supreme Court. Tyrants. Apparently they recognize that resistance to tyranny has something to do with the right.

    Now, would you like to be more specific as to which part of my “speculations” are not supported by Supreme Court decisions? Have you ever read a Supreme Court Decision?

    “We have tested the theory that unfettered access to guns increases safety, and we are losing ten thousand lives a year as a price.”
    When? Gun control laws are, in fact, the last of the “Jim Crow” laws enacted after the Civil War. They were enacted to make sure that the “wrong” element didn’t have access to fire arms. The were aimed primarily at Blacks, with “poor white trash” being a side benefit. One fourth of gun deaths occur in just four cities, cities with the strongest gun control laws in the country. In addition, the gun homicide figures counts anyone killed with a gun as a homicide. The granny that killed the home invader the other day is counted. The cop that shot the felon that decided to shoot it out is included. Homicides? Yes. Murders? No. Why is all the sturm und drang over semi-automatic rifles, anyway. They are, remember a subset of all rifles. Latest FBI figures show half again as many “homicides” committed with bats and hammers as with ALL rifles.
    BTW, ask the shop keepers in “Korea Town” if they really needed those AR 15’s and high cap magazines during the Rodney King Riots, and where the Cops that were supposed to “Protect and Serve” them were during the whole thing.

    “Most of the gun deaths among children occur here, in the United States.”
    Parroting disinformation doesn’t make it right. Few gang bangers are children. No serious effort is being made to control them. They kill each other frequently and often, and every 17 year old gang banger is reported as a child.

    “We also have tested it in countries that are awash in tribal, ethnic, religious, or racial armed militias that drive death tolls far above what even we experience.”

    They have been killing each other since before the discovery of gunpowder, and in some case before the discovery of fire. While you, as a “Liberal” have probably bought into the lie that the Mau Mau were freedom fighter, the were tribal based, and far more of the time and energy went into torturing and killing their tribal enemies than fighting the British. Their preferred weapon was the Machete, by the way, and rape was one of their favored tools of intimidation, and figure strongly into their “religious” rituals they practice before their attacks

  19. KM Hines wrote:
    “If you really believe that the United States government is going to become murderous and tyrannical”
    You really need to read some history. And not just the Cen Gov approved version.
    How about the “Patriot Act”. A truly bipartisan piece of legislation. Then the various NDAA’s. What happened to the Bill of Rights? Note that they are some of the truly bipartisan legislation to come out of D.C. Your “Lord and Savior” has used them to kill far, far more innocent children than Lanza did, without the excuse of being on psychotropic drugs. He decides to summarily execute an American citizen in violation of the 4th Amendment, and to hell with who ever is in the vicinity. Then to make it better, he waits until the first responder get on scene, and kills them. While watching it on his big screen TV. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, our supposed ally. And in Yemen. And in Indonesia. Sounds “Murderous and Tyrannical” to me. Of course, Indefinite detention became okay when your hero replaced the Chimp in Chief.

  20. KM Hines said:
    “It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that they are arming themselves with AR15 rifles in order to defend themselves against a modern army. The United States military has drones and hellfire missiles, bunker-buster bombs, cluster bombs, sophisticated sensors, cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery, fully automatic weapons including Gatling guns that fire six thousand rounds of 20 millimeter ammunition a minute, excellent body armor, and well trained troops. They have the advantage of coordination and defensible supply lines.”

    How’s that working out for them? Taliban all gone? How about As Qaeda? Oh, that’s right, Jihadists are just a figment of our imaginations. Ever hear of the rising in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII? Less than 500 fighters, literally starving to death as the fought. 68 guns, mostly antique, low powered revolvers, and homed bombs and firebombs. At the onset, the Germans estimated it would take them three days to wipe them out. After seven weeks, and the deployment of almost 10,000 troops, the Jews still fought. The Nazis used artillery, tanks, and aerial bombardment. They finally resorted to poison gas. They still didn’t eradicate all of the Jews
    If you read a little history every once in a while you’d find that well trained troop don’t fair that well in opposition to dedicated guerrillas. You’d also know that there are no such things as defensible supply lines
    Note also that, in fighting the Taliban, US forces have continually outnumbered them.
    The Army, including reserve components, has 1,130,000 troops, of which over half, and as much as 75% are non-combatant support troops. No more than 600,000 combat troops. While some estimates are that there are twenty million homes in the US with firearms, there are estimates, based on deer tag sales, that there were eighty million deer hunters in 2011. Using the estimated figures for the percentages of the way people become involved, approximately 1/3 of those will resist. That’s over twenty six million. That’s 44 to 1. And that’s not counting all the gun owners that didn’t go deer hunting.

  21. To KM Hines – You sir, are obviously two bits shy of a dollar (in other words, you are a little nuts). I am the paranoid one? You believe that big brother is watching everyone and they are keeping records of everyone purchasing guns and ammo? And furthermore, since I have voiced my opinion on the second amendment which is really no different than every conservative talk show radio host and every conservative TV personality and every conservative that ever lived (including the founding fathers) – that makes me some kind of target? Add to that millions and millions (at least 20 million) of gun owners who feel exactly the way I do and who believe the second amendment has the main purpose of protecting the populace from what could be a tyrannical government. My question to you is: Why are you so afraid of the government?

    Let’s just say you are right and that in your nutty world of 1984, the government has the goods on me. They know I have several “assault rifles” and I reload my own ammo and currently have a nice little stockpile (this happens to be perfectly legal in my state and locality). So what? If they come to my door and say, “we’ve got the goods on you Frank, turn ‘em in!” My response will be, “turn what in?” How can I prove that I don’t have something? And, how can they prove that I do through credit card receipts from places like Cabelas, CTD, etc. If they really press me I will say someone must have stolen my identity. They can search my property all they want and they won’t find them (I will have had plenty of warning because the odds of me being the first of over 20 million plus gun owners to be visited are sort of low). So what’s the outcome of all that? A big fat zero, that’s what.

    By the way I believe the government knows all too well that if they want to induce civil unrest and a possible civil war, all they need to do is what you have described (go door to door and search every property – in every corner of the country). A tall order, isn’t it? In that case the people will know instantly that the government is made up of a bunch of lying communists out to enslave them. Even if the government were able to put down any initial resistance, do you believe that Americans would allow themselves to be another North Korea?

    Civil war would not be pretty I am I not saying by any means that I want to see this happen. Only a fool would openly want that. But there are times when freedom loving people have no choice but to fight. That is what the second amendment is all about. If you don’t know that, I suggest you educate yourself about a topic as important as this one, before you go on a blog such as this and make yourself look stupid.

    We are a constitutional democracy? This is yet more proof that you are either nuts or not so bright or a combination of both. We happen to be a constitutional republic. There is a big difference between the two. And by the way, if I were truly paranoid (like you) I would not be posting all this stuff, would I?

    As far as putting up with people who don’t share my opinions I put up with them because I can’t force someone to think the way I do. Either can you. If you can’t take being criticized, then don’t make yourself a target for criticism. I gave you solid, provable, historically correct facts about why you are wrong on several levels. All you do is drum out your personal opinion. Having an opinion is fine as long as you don’t lie to strengthen your argument. Lying and making statements without knowing whether your statements are facts is the same thing.

  22. FRANK —

    So let me be sure I understand your point of view. First, you need to be heavily armed so that you can resist a tyrannical U.S. government that will ignore your second amendment rights, but you do not need to worry about the government keeping a registry of guns because that would be a violation of federal law. Perhaps you might think that through a little better.

    While you are thinking, keep in mind that the right wingers pushed through new powers for the federal government (now adopted by the left wingers, a sure sign of conspiracy) to collect information about American citizens without the approval of any court or possession of any warrant. The information they may gather includes groups you may belong to, books you may read (perhaps no problem there), and your bank account and credit information. Have you bought any guns and ammunition using checks or credit cards, Frank? They do not even need to tell why they want the information. That authority, of course is irrelevant if they have become tyrannical despots who ignore the Constitution and federal law anyway. And Frank, they would not need to confiscate 300 million guns, or arrest tens of millions of people. They could selectively target you and people who have expressed opinions like yours. They could look for people who have purchased only large amounts of ammunition or multiple firearms, or bought AR15s. You probably are already in government databases, and your influential opinions might already have made you a primary target for Seal Team 6.

    I hate to see anyone do anything half-way, Frank. If you are going to be paranoid, do it big time. Change your name, move, hide your weapons, and use throw away cell phones for communication. Live in a secret compound in another country. That’s how Bin Laden did it. Perhaps you could pose as a college English professor, or better yet as a liberal. They would never catch you then. Or, of course, you could just get serious about living in a Constitutional democracy with a lot of people who may or may not share your opinions or vote your way.

  23. Frank,
    I’m beginning to like your views more and more. Thanks for the re-assurance. As I wrote a couple of my legislators, I don’t eat, breathe and sleep 2nd Amendment, but I do believe in what it stands for. I love my country but I despise most of it’s leaders. If OBAMESSIAH and his WEATHERMEN (Yes they are still around) want to take my guns, then he will have a fight on his hands. I’m sure they know where I live. Of course I am one of those: Un Ed Gee Kated, In-bred, Gun Toten, Toothless, Rid Necked Southerners you heer bout all the time.
    BTW: Frank you are welcome at my house anytime.
    Thanks
    Mike

  24. To KM Hines – I have a problem with a couple of things in your post. First, the gun deaths of “children” are made up of about 98% gang bangers. They consider anyone under the age of 18 to be a “child”. That blows away your views about gun safety issues.

    Next, it’s a good thing you told us all about them thar “hell faar miss isles” We uns didn’t rightly no about no fancy high falutin gadgets that these here government types have! I feel so much better after being lectured by you. No I don’t.

    Did you ever hear of “guerilla tactics”? They were used against us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few. They can bring a much larger better equipped force to its knees. So don’t think that fighting the U.S. government is impossible because it isn’t.

    We outnumber the standing Army more than 50 to 1. Sure there would be lots of casualties but if anyone and I mean anyone at all tries to put me in a concentration camp – I WILL fight. The more likely scenario is that you may have to fight a local government like a corrupt sheriff’s department. That has already happened in this country in the last 75 years – several times.

    “They have most of our addresses” because of the stuff we post here. It sounds like you fear the government way more than we do. Can you imagine what different an outcome the revolutionary was would have taken if the founders were so afraid to talk about grievances – that they never did? We would all have Canadian accents today and would be saying “aye?” a lot.

    The things the Tyrant in Chief has just proposed are nothing short of ridiculous. Doctors will become snitches. A ban on what comprises at least 50% of all rifles in this country (Ars). A ban of anything bigger than 10 round magazines. Etc. etc.

    Hail the messiah!…… OBAMA! OBAMA !

    This will be my last post here. This blog has been nearly taken over by liberal progressives (just like the Democratic Party). I am weary of BS lies.

  25. To mike – that is a big lie about coming to your house to get your guns. The government is not supposed to be keeping a registry and if they did it would be a volation of federal law. The only thing they might have been doing is keeping a list of people who have purchased any kind of firearm thruogh the instant FBI background check from the Brady bill. If they were doing that we would know about it. They may eventually tell everyone to turn them in but that is very far-fetched. How would they go about collecting every gun in this country which numbers in the hundreds of millions? They can’t. I don’t know about you, but any call ro register I will ingor and the same with a call for a turn in. Obama and crew can go to hell.

  26. What happened in Newtown is a tragedy…but what if that crazy bastard had a butcher knife and hacked up 26 people….would our President (and I use that term loosely) be trying to ban all cutlery. No he wouldn’t. All he is trying to do is hurt law abiding Americans, criminals and crazys don’t care about laws. Now I might not have enough rounds to drop multiple attackers.I guess I will have to just put 1 in their head.

    A government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you have – Thomas Jefferson

  27. MacBeth —

    It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that they are arming themselves with AR15 rifles in order to defend themselves against a modern army. The United States military has drones and hellfire missiles, bunker-buster bombs, cluster bombs, sophisticated sensors, cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery, fully automatic weapons including Gatling guns that fire six thousand rounds of 20 millimeter ammunition a minute, excellent body armor, and well trained troops. They have the advantage of coordination and defensible supply lines. They also have most of your addresses because you persist in giving your location to sites like this so that you can express your opinions.

    If you really believe that the United States government is going to become murderous and tyrannical then horde ammunition, hide your guns and shut up. Burying your AR15 in a tube somewhere in the woods would have two excellent results. First, you would have it available for your heroic act of defiance if the events you fear really occur, and second it would be off the street if they do not.

    Your speculations about gun rights are just that — speculations. They are not supported by Supreme Court decisions, by history, or by existing laws. We have tested the theory that unfettered access to guns increases safety, and we are losing ten thousand lives a year as a price. Most of the gun deaths among children occur here, in the United States. We also have tested it in countries that are awash in tribal, ethnic, religious, or racial armed militias that drive death tolls far above what even we experience.

    This should not be a nation where who is right or wrong, who prevails or loses, is decided by firepower. We were created and have survived as a nation of laws. We defend ourselves against a tyrannical government by being the government. We protect against abuse of power by separating that power among the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. We elect Representatives every two years, Senators every six years, and Presidents every four years. We then trust those people to represent our well being. We limit their power through a Constitution, and if we are dissatisfied with their actions we replace them.

    I believe that capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder. My government does not. I believe that fighting an unjust war is murder. My government does not. I believe that government surveillance without a warrant is unconstitutional. My government does not. It is still my government. If I were to try to prosecute my dissatisfaction with my government through a force of arms it would be called treason. If I killed people in the process it would be called murder.

    Keep guns for self defense, for hunting, for recreation, or just because you want to. I do. So do millions of other Americans. Then think about compromising with those who truly are disturbed by the destructive capability of a center fire, semiautomatic rifle or carbine with a detachable magazine or a semiautomatic handgun with a high capacity magazine. If you are worried about a “slippery slope” then consider that if we have the ability to stop control of those weapons then we certainly would have the ability to stop the control of more sensible weapons. If, on the other hand, we fight this battle and lose then we will have weakened our position for any defense of firearms. Consider supporting universal background checks. Surely you do not favor selling guns to the mentally ill, to criminals, or to terrorists.

    Constitutional rights are protected against abuse by the Supreme Court, which has decided that the right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens. It already has decided that some gun laws adopted by state or local governments are illegal. Although I see nothing that appears to be unconstitutional in what has been proposed by the President, my opinion also is pure speculation. I am certain that each requirement will get its day in court.

  28. I am pretty much done writing here. This is a huge waste of energy for me. I will now totally redirect my efforts to getting all of my friends, neighbors and anyone else that’ll listen to get loud and involved with their reps, senators and the President to let them know that what they do has become intolerable and unacceptable. While talking to an audience of people who agree with me makes me feel better, it does no good unless we let these ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS know who their boss is they will neither hear nor listen. If we don’t flood their offices with letters, emails, faxes, jam the phone switchboards and threaten them with recalls we may as well be tilting at windmills. We had better organize, and aim a concentrated beam of anger at them or I fear that they will use the cacophony and confusion to yank the Constitutional rug right out from under us. While it is good to donate to the NRA and other legitimate groups to represent us in Washington we also need to be personally involved. We need to make them hear us individually as well. If we show them that we are smart enough to find them without the aid of a large organization they’ll know that we mean business.. Time to get our crap together before it’s too late.

  29. Now that POTUS has pitched his 2nd Amendment plans, can anyone tell me or give me an idea of what is really going to happen? Should I be preparing myself for a visit from ATF or FBI? Should I start hiding my firearms? Including my .50cal Flintlock?
    Thanks
    Mike

  30. Mike – don’t worry about ranting if you have something to say which you have done. The magazine ban may seem a harmless enough move now but it goes way deeper than what it seems at a superficial level. It will be the end of this country as we know it. If this sounds melodramatic just think about firepower in terms of a LEO. Cops have AR15s with 30 round mags. Why don’t they only have 10 rounders? Because: the threats they face have 30 rounders and then some, that’s why. It really depends on what part of the country you live in when it comes to your attitude towards this. The civilian is also faced with the same threats cops are. Why should civilians be at a disadvantage when they may be (and the odds are with that increasingly as time goes by – there are an estimated 1.4 million gang members in the U.S.) facing the same exact threat cops are? The fact is the number of deaths that can be attributed to high capacity mags is so small it defies logic as to how banning them will have any noticeable effect on safety. If you weigh the safety issue with the issue of taking needed firepower away from the populace there is no argument at all for the banning of “high capacity mags”. It is very clear. We will be giving up our country and our freedoms because of a few tragedies. What a pansy ass country we are turning into. It makes me sick. And don’t forget the same people who called us baby killers are now in power at the White House. As liberals, they are incapable of telling the truth. Good luck with the VA. Take it easy.

  31. I don’t currently own one of the long guns that are being the current prime targets, but I can see myself purchasing one and having it set up for multiple calibers. I have used rimfire gungs with higher capacity magazines to just shoot and have fun. If you are out in the field shooting, you may not want to carry two or three magazines or ammo to refill your magazines away from the house or vehicle. You just have to make sure that the area you are shooting in is safe and that there are barriers, man made or otherwise to protect those in surrounding areas (which is good practice regardless of the capacity of your firearm).

    To the point of
    There has been much conversation about why a person should be able to own a military style weapon because in their opinion it creates too big of a risk.
    If you think that military style weapons in too many hands will always result in someone doing something stupid or evil then check out Switzerland. If you have heard the following before please hang with me as others may not have read it.
    I double checked the information at lunch today, and the best information I could find indicates that PACIFIST country Switzerland still requires male citizens over 18 to go through military conscription. Part of this is firearms training, they are issued a fully automatic weapon (actually selective fire) that shoots the 5.56×45 Nato ammo. This is basically the same as the domestic .223 Remington ammo. They are required to keep the weapon at their residence while they are on active duty. Until 2007 they had to keep military ammo at home as well. The pictures of the military issue ammo appear to be regular ammo not preloaded magazines. So, they were issued at least one military magazine, and ammo is not that hard to obtain. When they finish their active service, they have the option of retaining their military issue weapon, it just has the automatic/selective fire mechanism removed and they have a semi-automatic weapon returned to keep in their house.
    So, they actually have actual military weapons under the control of the general public.
    Switzerland’s population in a 2007 census was less than 1 million people less than New York City’s population in the 2011 census. However, there were less than 100 murders involving firearms in Switzerland.
    Imagine that a pacifist country with full auto weapons in private residences and a low murder/death rate due to firearms. Why do we think eliminating them is the only way to control murders? Their laws for purchase of ammo and firearms does not appear to differ very much from what the USA already has in place. I know I am whipping a dead horse, but many of the places that have complex gun control laws have high crime and high murder rates.
    Some of you may want to investigate this on your own, there was some interesting analysis work on the data that showed what groups committed what percentage and type of crimes in 2010.

    Dave (midwest)

  32. KM Hines,
    In response to your post listed as #152, here is a copy of a letter I sent to My Congressional Delegation:
    A duly constituted body of Government Agents, under orders from the legitimate government moved to seize weapons and explosives from a self declared Militia. The Militia insurgents took position to block the Law Enforcement Agents access to the cache of military grade weapons and other materials. Suddenly, a shot rang out. The Date? April 19, 1775. The place? Near Concord, Massachusetts. So started the American Revolution. Now, two-hundred thirty-eight years later, the rights those Militiamen stood and fought for are under attack, all in the interest of making us “safe”.

    Make no mistake. Despite what is written in the history books about “no taxation without representation”, to the average colonist, it was not really an issue. Most bought little, if anything that was taxed. It took a certain income level to be one of those who purchased the items taxed, and the vast majority fell below it. The war started with gun control. Within six hours of word of the impending raid going out, it’s estimated that thirteen thousand men had assembled to resist the government. That’s without any modern electronic communications devices, remember. Thirteen thousand to stop a gun control raid.

    Senator Feinstein’s latest legislation ignores the wording of the Constitution when it says “shall not be infringed”. Remember, the Supreme Court has already ruled that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just that The right of the people as individuals. Remember, also, that in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that short barreled shotguns were not covered by the second amendment because, in essence, they were not military weapons. Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation is, in fact an attempt to subvert the rights of the people, essentially an attempt to subvert the United States. As such, it come perilously close to an Act of War on the United States.

    Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the “self evident” rights. Are the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term “Constitutional Rights” is a misnomer.

    Note also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn’t mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them. To think that they were not thinking in such terms is to ignore, not only their writings, but also the history of the preceding two decades.

    The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people

    Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty.

    It is time to remember your Oath of Office- “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

  33. Frank,
    I appreciate the comment. I am not against giving up firepower. Matter of fact I actually own a couple of weapons (M1A Semi Auto, and 1911 Semi Auto that are on or soon to be labeled “Assault Weapons”) Weapons very similar to these saved my life more than once. I hope and pray I never have to use them to defend my life again but I will if I have to. And I am totally for LEO’s having as much if not more than the element they are sworn to protect us against I actually have a brother who is a police officer. He agrees with most if not all of the responsible gun owners. And would stand behind them from a LEO’s point of view. I too agree with your reference to the ban of the rifles. And I know these “Anti-gunners” especially our grand “Commander-In-Chief” will not be satisfied until our 2nd Amendment has been so basterized to their way of thinking that no one will be allowed to even posses a .22 single shot. I am not a politician. Never have been and never wanted to be. I guess I have to much of a conscience. Matter of fact, not playing politics cost me promotions and forced me to retire from teaching. I have always done what I was told to do, for the most part including go to a place and fight in a war I had mixed emotions about and then return home to be labeled a baby killer and war monger. I guess if it came down to me being classed a criminal because I defend the 2nd Amendment, then so be it. If the high capacity magazine ban can not be passed without attaching the rifles as well, then I stand with you Frank.
    BTW: The only time I actually played politics was when I was fighting the VA for my earned benefits. And I almost died in a VA Hospital doing that. Now C-I-C is threatening to cut those. I still love this country but despise its so-called leaders. Hope I didn’t rant and rave to much with this post?

  34. To Mike, Yes it makes sense. However, I am saddened when I hear a brother Vietnam vet say that they are willing to give up firepower for some unknown public safety benefit. When I got back to the states in 1970, I stood on a street corner in Chicago and observed a cop directing traffic with the old S&W 38 special on his hip. My first reaction was, “My God, how can he protect himself with that?” If we give up high capacity magazines (and let us be clear that the rifles those magazines fit in will be banned too) we give up the balance of power between the government and populace. At that point, if some despot wants to put you in a concentration camp, pack your bags (if they allow that). Another way to look at this is: If a cop needs an AR15 and 30 round (or bigger) magazines or a Glock 19 with 19 round magazines then I need them too. When seconds count the police are minutes (sometimes 20 minutes or more) away. Most cops know this and they are firmy behind people protecting themselves (regardless of what you hear on MSNBC (Pravda). What do you do if you have 4 or 5 armed gang bangers break into your house, plead for mercy? This is so simple I will never understand why anyone cannot get this. I hope the VA has taken care of you; they have done little for me.

  35. I am a responsible gun owner/shooter/hunter. I am a volunteer Hunter Safety Instructor and have been for many years. I served in Vietnam from 1973 through the fall of Saigon in 1975 actually dodging bullets/rpg’s etc while assisting with the evac of US personnel in Saigon. Unfortunately one of those rounds found my stomach and lower intestine. Even though I was seriously injured, by the grace of God I made it back home.

    Personally I don’t have any big objection to regulating large capacity magazines/clips. What I do have is a problem with our elected officials using tragic events such as the New town shootings to play on the sympathies of Americans to sway opinions. In my opinion this is not the democratic process of law making that I fought and almost died to protect. What also bothers me is the way politicians can turn a small adjustment to an already existing law/amendment in to a larger adjustment that only lawyers and politicians can understand. Then the democratic process is no longer. I hope this comment makes sense?

  36. To KM Hines- Wow, I don’t know where to begin. You are probably the most ignorant and misinformed individual that I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with. If anyone is a parrot, it is you, KM Hines. You repeat things that liberals AKA communists have promoted for at least 50 years. Their view of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t mean what is says and it is an outdated document that was written by a bunch of white racist slave owners. I have even heard a “journalist” say that Thomas Jefferson was quoted as stating that “future generations should no more be held to the same constitution, as one would be held to the britches they wore as a child”! This is pure bullshit and the idiots that call themselves “journalists” know that it is pure bullshit. Do they care about lying? Hell no. That’s what liberals do. You guys don’t have any valid points and your ideas suck so that’s what you are pushed to do. That’s why liberals are the nastiest people in the world. They are very similar to communists when it comes to being nasty. I saw firsthand what communists have to resort to, in order to court the sentiments of the population they control. They would go into a farming village and drag out whoever they thought was the leader. They would then shoot him in the head, execution style and hang the body upside down for all to see. This was a common thing in all areas of Vietnam. This is what idiots resort to when they don’t have any real solutions or ideas that work. It is very obvious to me that you, just as all liberals do, are interpreting the constitution to conform with YOUR ideas. The Second Amendment guarantees that the citizen has the God given (or nature if you also have a hang up on that which most libs do) right to possess and carry small arms comparable to whatever the official Army Infantry weapons happens to be at the time. This includes fully automatic rifles and if the Army has 150 round magazines then the citizen has the right to them too! We submit to background checks and the need to have a class 3 FFL to own machine guns because we understand responsibility. Technically, though things like background checks and class 3 FFLs are infringements as are any “waiting periods” and a host of other government imposed laws we adhere to. This is what the Second Amendment says. It has been proven over and over again by constitutional scholars and that’s what the original intent and in the context of the situation at the time it was written. If you don’t like that, get it repealed. The gun poll taken by Glenn Beck’s Blaze.com showed that 99% of almost 5 million participants said they believed the SA was to protect citizens from an oppressive government. But I guess you think they are all wrong and you are right? Radioactive dirt bombs? Oh Please, go out and grow a brain and post something that actually makes sense. By the way, whatever kind of shooting you do, your buddies in the current administration may just put a stop to that, soon. When did I say anything about shooting police officers if they came for my guns? How do you know that I am not a police officer? I guess I would have to shoot myself if I resisted! That is also an insult but I consider the source – an ignorant liberal like you.

  37. FRANK: I am a liberal, and I post here for several reasons. First, I also am a shooter and I have visited this site for years as a customer. Second, this is an excellent site to share views with other shooters. Finally, I do so because I want to. Just like you.

    I want my fellow shooters to understand that there are millions of people in the U.S. who disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the applicability of the second amendment. Such disagreements are not unusual. You probably have friends who disagree with Roe vs. Wade, Miranda, and many Court decisions that interpret the first amendment as prohibiting sponsored prayer in public schools. Court rulings do not end disagreement, but merely clarify legal requirements.

    I post on this site to say that even those of us who believe that the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens do not necessarily believe that it is a right with no restrictions and an invitation to be irresponsible. Nearly everyone believes there is a limit to the destructive capability available to individuals. Radioactive dirt bombs, nuclear artillery shells, mustard gas, weaponized viruses and land mines must be able to be restricted even under the Supreme Court’s second amendment ruling. It is no more illegal to ban fully automatic and semiautomatic center fire weapons fed by detachable magazines or belts than to ban those other weapons. In short, you are overstating the scope of the second amendment as interpreted by the Roberts Court. That decision left open the right of the federal, state, and local governments to limit weapons in ways that could be tested legally after their adoption. You also are acting as if today’s interpretation will last forever. Court rulings sometimes are overturned by future Courts, and Constitutional provisions are sometimes changed by future amendments.

    Our nation is now assessing whether to limit the kinds of weapons that are legally available to individuals, the individuals to whom the right to bear arms applies, and the procedures we will use to enforce those restrictions. Any decision we make will be subject to legal challenge and review. When that process is completed each person must decide, as with any other law, whether to abide by its mandates or disobey it.

    I have heard just like you the “cold dead hands” speech. While it sounds noble, what it means is that you will disobey laws adopted through a democratic process and kill police officers who are performing their duty to enforce them. You are saying that you do not believe in the nation that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to maintain or the government created by our Constitution. If that happens, Frank, you will not be a hero, any more that a person killing police officers to protect his cache of poison gas would be a hero today. You will be a traitor and a criminal.

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.