Yes, I plan to vote for you, but to an extent it's a default vote and I disagree with certain of your declarations of intent. One of those is illustrated by your declaration that modern rifles like the AR-15 are weapons of war and unfit for civilian use. The facts are otherwise even if some terrorist uses one. May I point out that Ammonium Nitrate and the Boing 737 have been used to murder far more people than the two weapons used yesterday in Orlando.
Of those two firearms, one actually was a weapon of war, in the sense that it's identical to the Military M9 pistol, the other one is not military and thus not an assault rifle. It is not used by any military in the world, it just looks like it. Let me illustrate:
This is the M1 Garand. It's an actual semi-automatic military assault rifle, (no longer used) It holds 8 rounds.
This is the AR-15. It's semi-Automatic but not military and not used by any military for assaults or wall decoration for that matter. Like the military M16, It holds 20 rounds minimum but up to 100 with a drum magazine.
The first uses a massively powerful .30 caliber cartridge cartridge, the second does not, but rather the diminutive .223. Past "assault weapons" bans as we've known them have banned the second and allowed the first. I suggest that if you do find the ability to ban weapons for any legitimate purpose other than to placate the phobics, you notice the essential difference between these two weapons is the high capacity magazine on the modern rifle and consider an honest definition of "assault rifle." It would be very difficult to accomplish, but finally more productive to ban or restrict the sales and ownership of such high capacity magazines on all firearms.
Glenn R. Geist
Finally, a position any reasonable person should be able t support.ReplyDelete
Ah but this is America.Delete
The AR-15 is widely considered the civilian equivalent of the M-16. In fact the first AR-15s (Armalite Corp) were field tested by the Army. With minor design changes by Colt, the weapon was termed M-16. Like the M-1 and M-14, it is considered an assault weapon, the smaller 5.56mm being much lighter as well as the ammo pack. The military is also concerned with range and rate of fire and evenReplyDelete
the semi-automatic AR-15 (made by dozens of US firms) fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. When I was at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition plant in the mid
sixties, we turned out hundreds of millions of both 7.62 and 5.56mm and despite
arguments by some about the smaller caliber, the 5.56mm/M-16 (AR-15) worked extremely well in close combat and particularly street and house to house operations. IMO the AR-15 therefore is simply a civilian assault weapon; with
considerable alteration somewhat suitable for hunting. The NRA fought extremely hard to end the ban and was successful. So, they are extremely popular with the
military wannabee/cop wanabee crowd as well as serious collectors and target shooters. While they are banned in Australia, they are permitted under licensing
in many countries, while here you can get one at a gun show, no questions asked.
They do seem popular with those bent on mass mayhem. Much more effective than a
killer lugging an old M-1, IMO. Since the weapon is now widely owned, little can be done other than to hope those with the 'right' have some modicum of responsibility.
I can't consider that adding selective fire is a minor change. The US Army definition of an assault rifle mandates selective fire among other things. If it's not a machine gun it's not an assault rifle.Delete
Smaller caliber, notwithstanding, any bullet can kill, and high capacity magazines make the killing more efficient. Will the manufacturer employ former mass murderers for on-camera testimonials? Mass murder, or mass marketing, it's the sales quota that body counts.ReplyDelete
The deadlyness of a bullet is, as you say, not the issue. Mypoint is the rhetoric which will describe the small caliber bullet as "Large Bore, High Caliber" as a mtter of course without any thought to it's beg true or not. I'm so disgusted by the outright lies designed to scare and enrage people past the point of rational action. The AR-15 does not have a selective fire option. Owning a rifle that has will land you in jail even if that feature is disabled. It doesn't matter, the semi-auto is deadly enough for the purpose but so are any number of weapons. We should not base regulations on misleading nomenclature designed to mislead and frighten.
I will repead, the danger of this "assault rifle" is no more than if you were to put a large magazine on a hunting rifle and it's common practice to do that. If I can't buy an AK47 or a Bushmaster I sure as hell can buy a Ruger Ranch Rifle in a number of calibers and make it the equivalent in firepower.
Just like America to ban beer and allow wine. Do we need a slogan? What about "it's the magazine, dummy?"
Sometimes, when reading or listening to the left's narrative on firearm control, it is easy to imagine the ultimate goal is to indeed ban all firearms from the private sector. Of course such a ban is unlikely as it would require a constitutional change. Overturning the second amendment.ReplyDelete
I don't think the left actually wants such a ban. Hunters, sportsman, and collectors populate the left as well as the right and the vast majority are responsible. A great number have no problem with sensible no nonsense firearm regulations. It is the NRA, and their political lackeys that are the problem. As well as the manufacturer of "assault" weapons and high capacity clips and drums. Why hunters, or sportsmen need such capacity makes no sense.
What really bothers me is the overheated rhetoric coming from both sides of the issue. Congress needs to act. Responsibility and reasonably. Not going to hold my breath.
I agree. I do not understand the irresponsible rhetoric mostly because it shows there is little interest in selling responsible gun control. You don't sell an idea by bombast and slander and stereotyping, nor by making up ambiguous, misleading and often false terminology. There is little to nothing in the rhetoric about gun control that's actually persuasive in any way and so I somply do not trust any of it.Delete
Great post, short and to the truth, Captain. And I ditto RN, something "reasonable" people can agree on.ReplyDelete
Me neither. If they did, it might be the first time. The left is heavily influenced by true phobics, but of course so is the Right. I just spend too much time on facebook this morning trying to shoot down the invasion of fake data, fake descriptions and fake quotes put out by anti-gun nuts. I really believe they wait for these events with eagerness, becauseit's a sales opportunity.ReplyDelete
It may be a sales opportunity...it certainly is for the weapons/ammo industry. The shelves go empty after every massacre.Delete
As we all expected, there are lines at the gun shops. That's why the NRA raves about gun confiscation every day - day after day. Everybody profits from the panic on both sides - except us, of course.Delete
But hey, I'm getting rid of some unwanted guns and now is a great time!
I really believe they wait for these events with eagerness, becauseit's a sales opportunity.ReplyDelete
I believe you are very likely right Captain.
Thank you but it's so frustrating to see how any statement of incontrovertible fact is parried with ever more creative restatements that semi-automatic is pretty much the same as automatic. Nobody listens, nobody checks facts, everybody keeps reading from the received texts, But beyond that frustration is that same old fallacy so dear to the activist mind. The fallacy of the single cause, that oversimplification and that distraction. A guy walks into a nightclub with two guns. The cause of all that death was only one of them? Why is that? Why? because we don't see reality, we choose canned arguments from a variety of narrow focus, narrow minded and passionate organizations. Overwhelmingly, murders are done with handguns.ReplyDelete
Remember when there was a move to make New Yorkers thinner by banning large soft drinks? The hidden assumption was that the reason for obesity is a single and simple one. Ban Slurpies and never mind the 90 pounds of French Fries the average American eats in a year.
How many people bother to look up the difference between an "assault weapon" Which is a political term and "assault Rifle" which is a strictly defined military term? ZERO. It's always easier to pull a standard riposte off the shelf and so we will wind up with a ban on one factor and nothing concerning the other and far more prevalent items that need to be addressed.
It's emotionally based and thus will have almost no effect to ban semi-automatic firearms. Why ban one firearm and call it military when you don't ban another with more firepower which actually IS military? That's because we have the blind leading the blind and the mistaken peddling mistakes. California now has some very odd but strict restrictions on autoloading firearms. Let's see what difference it makes, if I might be so bold as to suggest objectivity.
With 300 million firearms already out there, and with a usable service life of hundreds of years, let's just see what concentrating on bogeymen does for us.
Meanwhile the endless nattering about special "bullets" able to blow up tanks and kill 100 with one blow simply makes the chance of convincing one single opponent you have a case. Keep calling them idiots and assholes and demons and they'll all be enlightened, right?
But hey, we all know the old saw about never changing your mind and never changing the subject and the other one about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.