Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

2nd Amendment

Another slant to gun control?

Uploaded on February 11, 2013

It's not a light reading magazine but if you have a chance to read the February issue of National Review magazine, there's an interesting article "The Right to Bear Arms and Popular Sovereignty" by Charles Cooke.

The Cliffs Notes are basically that "we" as a Democracy should stop asking why own semi autos and start asking why not encourage everyone to own assault rifles. Minorities and anyone who doesn't fit the "norm" should be the ones worried about gun bans. Cooke points out that governments historically ban guns as the first step in disenfranchising minorities.

Britain's Bill of Rights of 1689 banned Catholics from having arms. Canada passed its first gun control laws between 1911 and 1913 to keep guns away from non-British immigrants. Closer to home, it's been well documented that when Congress passed the gun control acts of 1968, one of their main (but not publicly stated) goals was limiting African American's access to some types of guns. (Does the Civil Rights Movement ring a bell? A lot of Congressmen and their constituents were adamantly opposed to it).

When you look at the overall history of gun control, maybe all Americans, not just gun owners, should start asking about the real motives behind the new gun control proposals. Maybe Cooke is paranoid. But then again, history has a habit of repeating itself.

Top Rated
All Replies
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Ok Hoski, can't wait to hear you whine about conspiracy theories again.

This post brings up a good point though. History does tend to repeat itself. Hoski seems to think that it will never happen in the US because we are a democracy and we vote. Only question I ask is what happens if our votes mean nothing at some point.

Here is a hypothetical for you Hoski, since you kept bringing it up.

Lets say the government bans firearms and goes door to door and confiscates. I know its a long shot but bear with me. The American people try to vote to bring back the Second Amendment. We get shut down and Big Brother says no. Do you fight for your rights? Would you be apart of a resistance? Would you fight for the Constitution?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Nope, I can definitely wait.
As is the usual, the "article" compares past govts. confiscating guns in order to subjugate it's population. The only one it missed was Hitler's Germany.
Conspiracy theories are boring me, and after 4 years of them I'll just go straight to mocking them instead of trying reason.

Concerning your hypothetical, first explain how the impossible happens (confiscation of all guns)in the first place, then maybe I'll play along.
On second thought, no I won't. I'll turn on the TV when I want entertained.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I love your line of thinking Hoski.

Maybe our Fore Fathers and our great great great great grandfathers should have just waited for England to change their minds too. I am sure we would still be the country we are today if we had not fought for our rights and freedoms.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
How can you make the comparison of the United States of today to a British colony, under British rule of a Monarch?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Wow. That was enlightening Whitetailfreak. My next question could also be asked by taking the first letters of each word of your user name. WTF?
To the post of the thread... Yes as a democracy we should start encouraging everyone to own assault rifles. That's brilliant. Wouldn't that be a nice world to raise your kids in.
Back to you wtf. Would I kill my fellow citizens, neighbors, etc for the right to own the guns that I am currently using to kill them? It would only come to that in the world that your avatar next to your name lives in (what is that thing anyway?)
Hoski: If you can't see the parallel between more thorough back ground checks for fire arms today and the focal point of the American Revolution then you just are not looking hard enough... yeah right.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

1ojolsen,
Excuse me, I just don't see any parallel between advocating for a more thorough background check and the American Revolution...perhaps you'd take a little more time to explain?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Didn't the NRA support that gun control act of 68? California's strict gun control began with Reagan exactly because the Black Panthers brought shotguns to the statehouse.

I don't support gun control much. But I do suport reducing causes of gun homicide.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Hoski: I was kidding.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

In Sweden all households have a so called 'assault' rifle and ammo. Whatever their current military rifle is. They do not seem to have much of a crime problem. Why is that? When Hoski answers that question we will have the answer to criminals with guns in America.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

It's because up until 2010 Sweden maintained mandatory military service, so all those people have had extensive and appropriate training with their firearms. It's not just a bunch of regular guys who show their driver's license and buy a gun to keep in their closet, like it is in the States.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I see today a message surfaced from the Califonia cop killer who was himself a cop. Before the liberals could characterize the guy as a RWNJ the message surfaced, and he praised Obama, other leftists, praised Obama's call for gun control, blamed racism in the Police Dept...all liberal spewing points. Incredible the numbers of people that are now licensed, or getting permitted to carry a concealed weapon. Both my brothers now, and their wives in the past few months have gotten their permits. Another divide Obama has created.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

'freek

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!

Homaski would never bobble! He would immediately turn in all arms and tell the "gendarmes" to tell the sheriff, "I ain't gonna vote FOR you next election!". Followed by a nasty letter to his "elected" officials "demanding" they reverse the confiscation order or he won't vote for them either. This will probably be followed by a post on F&S how it's the GOP's fault and Obama is a hero!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Rocaphilla,
Thank you for beating me to the punch.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba. The horse knows what's in the water.
Why do you put quotation marks around every other word? In your example above, were the "officials" not really "elected"?
Clinchknot: So you blame Obama for your brothers and sisters-in-law for getting concealed carry? Which divide is that exactly that he created? The concealed carry v non concealed carry divide?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

All of you libs, did I equate the US to a British colony. It was a hypothetical, and I made that clear. Apparently if you are a liberal you can talk about hypotheticals, but if you are a conservative you are taken literally and jumped on.

Great job idiots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Well, here's how I saw it.
First you mentioned our fore fathers then went right into our great great grand fathers, from there, in the same sentence you referenced waiting for England to change their minds.
Now maybe I'm guessing wrong, but I thought you were referencing England trying to take all those muskets from the colonists...you know, the Revolutionary war and all.
Please correct me if I guessed wrong.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Rocaphilla missed the point completely. I know all that, but a gun is a gun is a gun.
Tell me why one society has all the problems and the other does not? The guns are common to both, the crime and violence is not. Just answer why?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

ojo

I can't imagine "how" or "why" my use of "quotation" marks affects "you"! Nor do I really care. Best I can tell you is if it bothers you "that" badly, just don't read my posts!!
Now, if you can produce a "Blog Sheriff" badge and creds (and not the Cracker Jack set!) you just might make a difference! But I doubt it! You've pretty much bliwn your "legitimacy" with me due to your previous "I as a Police Officer..." comment! Impersonating a police officer is pretty serious and awfully petty.
Even just being "cute" or just intimating you "may" be a cop is pretty serious too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

jhjimbo: There are entire books, dissertations, and hundred of academic articles written about that by people who spend their entire lives trying to understand it, and you want an answer in a Field and Stream message board? Get real, dude.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Hoski, Ill break it down nice and simple. And again, this is a hypothetical.

I gave an example of the government banning and confiscating guns. And as you have clearly pointed out in other threads, who cares, we will fix it. Its a democracy. That is why I included saying that the government makes a power grab and denies the voting process. We vote for guns, the government says NO.

Your answer was "I can definitely wait."

I only bring up the Revolutionary War because our Fore Fathers thought exactly the opposite (Thank God!).

When push came to shove, and words and diplomacy failed, they took action. SoIl am not likening the US being under a monarchy. I am showing how idiotic and out of touch your reasoning is. Who cares if my rights are taken away from me! Ill just sit and wait for them to come back. Great reasoning.

1ojolsen, never did I say anyone should go out and kill neighbors and citizens. First of all, like I said before, it was a HYPOTHETICAL POST. And obviously, I am for diplomacy and talking things out. But there will always be a line in the sand between what the government can and can not do. And it takes patriots to voice their concerns and need be, fight for them.

Does any of this make sense to you Liberals or do you think our Founding Fathers were rebelling for no reason, and were terrorists against the King?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

jhjimbo: the answer is because of the lax teaching of personal responsibility, pure and simple. When the government stops arguing about the Dem. and Rep. side of things and starts realizing that their country's problems are the result of a moral decline in the people and start doing something about it, that's when we will start seeing a drop in crime entirely. Also a text has been written for many years that has been proven through many years of practice and use to work every time... The Holy Bible(KJV IMHO).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

OK whitetailfreek, I'll try MY best here.

In your hypothetical, you again reference some big bad wolf, some power unto itself form of govt confiscating firearms...then you go right into admitting that you allegedly understand our form of govt. The first simply cannot happen while the other functions. Period.
Now if you are referencing some Hollywood form of the movie Red Dawn, I suggest practicing separation of fantasy from reality.
My hypothetical at least had the remote possibility of reality by way of the very slim chance that an AWB could happen, note I emphasize remote possibility. Whereas your hypothetical is simply fantasy.
BTW, just for the heck of it, from here out, I'm just going to count how many posts you submit where you don't call someone an idiot...that way the number will stay nice and low.
Oh, and I see I was correct in your analogy of the U.S. to a British colony.
One more little factiod, the Revolutionary war started over taxation without representation. There were plenty of folks who were just fine with an American Monarchy, many wanted George Washington to be crowned King.
Have a great day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Country Boy,
I like your thinking about teaching morality.
The only thing I'd caution is your statement about involving the govt. about teaching morals...that stuff belongs at home.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Start the count Hoski.

#1 You are an idiot.

Sometimes, I don't know if you just don't understand, or if you deliberately take things out of context, and distort things to try and make yourself seem smarter.

Either way, you are an idiot. #2

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
At least my hypothetical has an outside chance of becoming reality...that's how our system works.
Your hypothetical is pure Hollywood fantasy and has absolutely zero chance of happening.
So what do you want me to say? That I'd dig a hole? Stock a bunker and fight it out after posting my manifesto online?
You looking to see me post that I'd retreat into the hills and conduct hit and run raids on the govt?
Maybe you should lay off the sauce.
BTW, it's not that I seem smarter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I am no expert but i think crime and violence started when single women thought they could be a single parent and then about the same time kids got "rights". I believe it takes two to raise a child properly. Sure there are exceptions, but two parents are the ideal family unit. Drugs did not help either. A 7 year nephew going to a nice school in the '70's knew who the drug dealers were.
The violence that comes from hollywood and computer games has added to the fire.
The people who are experts in this and devoted their whole life to crime and violence have not done a very good job of it. IMHO

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Obviously you have a comprehension deficit.
I said I was going to count the number of your posts where you DON'T call someone an idiot to keep the number low.
You're still at zero.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba: obviously you can read but the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension. I offer you this. Go cut and paste my supposed "I as a police offer" quote into this thread. If I indeed said that I will never post here again if I did not you never post again. Deal? You saw Pray-Hunt's comment after my post where he said he misread what I posted, I know because you commented on that, so you already know that is not what I said which makes you a liar. So if you do not do the cut and paste you admit that you are a liar, and if you do, then you'll show everyone that you are one. Have a good time in your nicely dug hole.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Nice!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

SF Against "Assault Weapon" Ban

from 1ojolsen wrote 4 days 5 hours ago

Sarge: I did think about that and I do give it credence, "BUT I AS A POLICE OFFICER..." (my emphasis! )

P-H-W and Gary Devine also read your post as claiming you were a LEO!

As far as I'm concerned, adios to ya!
On the other hand, I figure you'll weasel around claiming that "wasn't what I meant"!
Makes no difference, whether you meant it or just intimated it, it is what it is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba read and post it all. This is the first time I went and re-read it and its obvious the I in that sentance is a mistake. I typed it on my phone and the auto feature suggestes the next work and if you space bar twice it adds it. On my phone the auto suggestion for the word "but" is the word "I". However from the context of the rest of the sentence its evident that the I is a mistake. See the full sentence below and take the "I" out.
from 1ojolsen wrote 4 days 5 hours ago
Sarge: I did think about that and I do give it credence, but I as a Police Officer do you see the inner workings, other than enforcement and on the ground judicial? As a soldier (and I know that there are exceptions) are you really on the inside track?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

By the way Bubba I do apologize as I did type the word "I" in that post by mistake.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Oh boo hoo! Just what I thought! Can you squirm a little harder?
Now! Adios, muchacho!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Adios

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ableskeever wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Violence began when Cain killed Abel in a field. I hear he used a .223 to get the job done.

The idea that only a government trained person can participate in private ownership of "black guns" goes out the window. The easiest proof is that LAPD officer who started executing people. His personal politics aside, which differ depending on what news station you watch, can we really put that much faith in our government to protect us?

I don't care how much professional training they have, people can still do evil. Any person intent on it will find a way to accomplish it... laws or no laws. Even if magically, every firearm on earth were to disappear, there would still be the same murder rates, just by other means. Kids intent on doing harm to their classmates will find ways of doing so. All it would take is a legal can of gasoline and a legal box of matches. Reality trumps the fantasy of gun control arguments.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

...and I don't think "enhanced background" checks are going to be any magic potion either.
It's all "much ado about nothing."
Political posturing at the expense of victims families!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sorry I'm late Hoski, your right morals should be taught at home, but it seems that everyone has forgotten that now.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

You're right Country Boy, seems like lots of folks have forgotten all about morality and ethics.
Maybe we should re-start the tarring and feathering of elected officials when they're caught lying, cheating, sleeping around, embezzling, etc.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

There isn't enough tar or feathers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from armedliberal wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Plenty of chickens in congress for a feather supply. Right wing chickens.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from habben97 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

this armed liberal guy seems like trouble.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

No trouble just another liberal spouting off about the things that he wished he knew something about.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

To match all the conservatives doing the same

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Tarring and feathering sounds good to me, although hot oil and the rack sounds better, or maybe public whipping!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I've written to my representation on several occasions suggesting legislation be created setting a recall policy.
I would hope that after a few examples were made of a few elected officials being publicly humiliated, stripped of their Congressional pensions, fined, and some jail time...we could go back to true civilian representative governance.
I wish more citizens would do the same.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Hoski, for as much as we disagree this is something we can both agree on.

And thanks for not singling out only Republicans like your new friend armedliberal did. The problem is with politicians on both sides. Actual compromise needs made.

Most conservatives and liberals want the same thing. A strong America where people are working and living life happily. We just disagree on the paths to get there, whether right or wrong. Theory and real world are two different things and that can also be said about both sides.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I don't know if anyone would know where to start to do what you want to do Hoski. From what we see, read and hear, most of them from both sides of the isle are there for their own gain and not for our well being. It always amazes me how "holier than thou" they seem till someone leaks something on them and then they start to beg for forgiveness so they can stay and keep stealing from us, like the guy now who had an illegal working for him who was a convicted felon, and now it comes out that he even has contact with underage prostitutes. Someone like that should be stripped of everything and booted out no questions asked. Neither party has a lock on rightousness.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Amen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sarge,
I just want to say something about your first sentence, about "not knowing how to get there".
We shouldn't settle for doing nothing, we have to start somewhere.
As this nation sits now, nearly nothing is accomplished...nothing.

Right now, there's a deadline approaching where truly hurtful cutting is virtually guaranteed to happen in a couple weeks. The sequester. This is a disaster that is 100% self inflicted, Congress created this nightmare and where are they today?
In recess!
The whole bunch of em should hide themselves under the handiest rock in shame.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Good God!

AR-15 rifle. It is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Millions have been sold to American citizens since 1963.
-
The AR-15 is the most common example of what are sometimes called assault weapons. But what does this term actually mean?
-
First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn't. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
-
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."
If an assault weapon is not an assault rifle, what is an assault rifle?
-
M4A1 carbine. It is a U.S. military service rifle. It is also an assault rifle.
-
The M4A1 is fully automatic. This means it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.
-
The M4A1 and other fully automatic firearms are also called machine guns. In 1986, the Federal government banned the sale or transfer of new machine guns to civilians.
-
Like the majority of firearms sold in the United States, the AR-15 is semi-automatic. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.
-
The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.
-
So-called assault weapons are not machine guns or assault rifles. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:
-
“What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns. “
-
The truth about assault weapons is that they function like this ranch rifle... shotgun... pistols… double-action revolvers...
-
All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
-
But if that's true, what makes this semi-automatic rifle a ranch gun and semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon?
-
The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:
-
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-
In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.
-
This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the sale of new assault weapons to American civilians.
-
However, since "assault weapon" was an invented term, it had no technical meaning. Before assault weapons could be banned, legislators had to define them.
-
Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.
-
Banned "military-style" features included certain combinations of collapsible stocks, flash hiders and pistol grips, none of which actually made the firearms more lethal.
-
According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimes.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.-
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.
-
Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
-
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
-
Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
-
Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:
-
[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
-
Furthermore, legislators had misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons. In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.
-
At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
-

Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:
-
[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
-
Furthermore, legislators had misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons. In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.
-
At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
-
Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.
-
Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine's capacity was incidental to the amount of death and injury an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone."
-
Although the Virginia Tech massacre was and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, it resulted in relatively few calls for new gun control, possibly because so-called assault weapons were not used.
-
But after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons were widely depicted as military weapons whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people.
-
In reality, so-called assault weapons are commonly used by hunters and competitors.
It has been estimated that at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009. In its ubiquity, the AR-15 is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
-
The AR-15 is particularly favored for its modularity, accuracy, light weight, and low recoil—attributes that make it ideal not only for shooting sports but also armed self-defense.
-
As such, it is the epitome of what America's founders sought to protect when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
-
Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.
-
However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.
-
According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
-
Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.
-
However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.
-
According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
-
Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
-
Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.
-
Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.
-
At the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used a best-selling handgun.
-
Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.
-
Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.
-
At the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used a best-selling handgun.
-
All else being equal, a gun that is common is more likely to be used for legal or illegal purposes than a gun that is rare. Outlawing guns that are popular today will only make different guns popular tomorrow.
-
The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans.
-
Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.
-
Contact your legislators, and tell them the truth about assault weapons.
-
________________________________________
No corporation, lobby, or political action committee had any part in the creation or funding of this educational project. It is solely the work of an individual.
-
www.assaultweapon.info/

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court [contributor]
-
December 22, 2012 By Mitch F. 3 Comments
-
Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.
-
Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.
-
Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The law imposed a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppression devices and other destructive devices.
-
The NFA was challenged before the Supreme Court in 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton had transported a double barrel shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The firearm was not registered nor was there a tax stamp affixed order for the gun as defined by the NFA. The District Court struck down the NFA on Second Amendment grounds. On hearing the case (United States v. Miller) the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and held the NFA to not violate the Second Amendment.
-
The primary reasoning of the Court was that automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons bore no relation to the needs of the common infantryman at the time.
-
From the ruling:
-
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
-
Further, the Court found “that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
-
In subsequent references to Miller (of which there are seven), the Court has repeatedly held this basic principle. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess those guns that would be used by infantryman to defend our freedom.
-
There have been challenges to the nature of the right Miller defined. United States v. Warin and United States v. Oakes are most prominent. The Court’s rulings had painted a picture where the Second Amendment was meaningless. Under the rulings of Miller, Warin and to notes in Oakes, the Court protected neither a right to keep arms for personal defense nor a right to keep arms to be used in a citizen militia. I am hard pressed to understand what exactly the Second Amendment was protecting in the years leading up to 2008.
-
In 2008 the Second Amendment received its first direct review since Miller. District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns for self defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
-
Heller, however, left the question of incorporation open. This was settled two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago when the Court extended the individual right to all citizens of the United States via the Due Process clause. The ruling struck down the Chicago gun ban and cleared the confusion regarding Heller’s application to the states.
-
Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).
-
At the time of Miller, the official primary infantry arm was the United States Rifle, Cal. 30 M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand. This gun had an 8 round magazine and was a gas operated semi-automatic action. That is, for each time the trigger is depressed, one round (shot) is fired. While officially adopted in 1936, it was not fully deployed until 1941. Many soldiers at the time of Miller were still issued the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle. Both of these guns sported barrels in excess of 22″ of length.
-
Today, the modern infantryman is equipped with M4, which is a derivative of the M16/AR-15 line of guns. The M4 is a carbine with an overall length of 33 inches and a barrel length of 14.5 inches. The stock is adjustable for length, it is issued with a 30 round detachable box magazine and a flash hider. The gun has three fire control modes: safe, semi-automatic and 3-round burst. The M4A1 which is issued to certain squads has a different trigger pack: safe, semi-automatic and fully automatic. In addition, in a ten-man squad, you will see two men equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapons System, a light machine gun. General officers, medics, and other non-combat personnel in a combat zone are issued a Beretta M9, a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic handgun for personal defense.
-
If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should. They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban. But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

What part of the 2nd Amendment you just don't understand!

To bad you all missed a meeting with Asa Hutchinson and State representatives today, it was awesome!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply

from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba: obviously you can read but the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension. I offer you this. Go cut and paste my supposed "I as a police offer" quote into this thread. If I indeed said that I will never post here again if I did not you never post again. Deal? You saw Pray-Hunt's comment after my post where he said he misread what I posted, I know because you commented on that, so you already know that is not what I said which makes you a liar. So if you do not do the cut and paste you admit that you are a liar, and if you do, then you'll show everyone that you are one. Have a good time in your nicely dug hole.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba. The horse knows what's in the water.
Why do you put quotation marks around every other word? In your example above, were the "officials" not really "elected"?
Clinchknot: So you blame Obama for your brothers and sisters-in-law for getting concealed carry? Which divide is that exactly that he created? The concealed carry v non concealed carry divide?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Country Boy,
I like your thinking about teaching morality.
The only thing I'd caution is your statement about involving the govt. about teaching morals...that stuff belongs at home.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Nice!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

By the way Bubba I do apologize as I did type the word "I" in that post by mistake.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sorry I'm late Hoski, your right morals should be taught at home, but it seems that everyone has forgotten that now.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

You're right Country Boy, seems like lots of folks have forgotten all about morality and ethics.
Maybe we should re-start the tarring and feathering of elected officials when they're caught lying, cheating, sleeping around, embezzling, etc.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

To match all the conservatives doing the same

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Ok Hoski, can't wait to hear you whine about conspiracy theories again.

This post brings up a good point though. History does tend to repeat itself. Hoski seems to think that it will never happen in the US because we are a democracy and we vote. Only question I ask is what happens if our votes mean nothing at some point.

Here is a hypothetical for you Hoski, since you kept bringing it up.

Lets say the government bans firearms and goes door to door and confiscates. I know its a long shot but bear with me. The American people try to vote to bring back the Second Amendment. We get shut down and Big Brother says no. Do you fight for your rights? Would you be apart of a resistance? Would you fight for the Constitution?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Nope, I can definitely wait.
As is the usual, the "article" compares past govts. confiscating guns in order to subjugate it's population. The only one it missed was Hitler's Germany.
Conspiracy theories are boring me, and after 4 years of them I'll just go straight to mocking them instead of trying reason.

Concerning your hypothetical, first explain how the impossible happens (confiscation of all guns)in the first place, then maybe I'll play along.
On second thought, no I won't. I'll turn on the TV when I want entertained.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I love your line of thinking Hoski.

Maybe our Fore Fathers and our great great great great grandfathers should have just waited for England to change their minds too. I am sure we would still be the country we are today if we had not fought for our rights and freedoms.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
How can you make the comparison of the United States of today to a British colony, under British rule of a Monarch?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

1ojolsen,
Excuse me, I just don't see any parallel between advocating for a more thorough background check and the American Revolution...perhaps you'd take a little more time to explain?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Didn't the NRA support that gun control act of 68? California's strict gun control began with Reagan exactly because the Black Panthers brought shotguns to the statehouse.

I don't support gun control much. But I do suport reducing causes of gun homicide.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Hoski: I was kidding.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

In Sweden all households have a so called 'assault' rifle and ammo. Whatever their current military rifle is. They do not seem to have much of a crime problem. Why is that? When Hoski answers that question we will have the answer to criminals with guns in America.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

It's because up until 2010 Sweden maintained mandatory military service, so all those people have had extensive and appropriate training with their firearms. It's not just a bunch of regular guys who show their driver's license and buy a gun to keep in their closet, like it is in the States.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I see today a message surfaced from the Califonia cop killer who was himself a cop. Before the liberals could characterize the guy as a RWNJ the message surfaced, and he praised Obama, other leftists, praised Obama's call for gun control, blamed racism in the Police Dept...all liberal spewing points. Incredible the numbers of people that are now licensed, or getting permitted to carry a concealed weapon. Both my brothers now, and their wives in the past few months have gotten their permits. Another divide Obama has created.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Rocaphilla,
Thank you for beating me to the punch.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

All of you libs, did I equate the US to a British colony. It was a hypothetical, and I made that clear. Apparently if you are a liberal you can talk about hypotheticals, but if you are a conservative you are taken literally and jumped on.

Great job idiots.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Well, here's how I saw it.
First you mentioned our fore fathers then went right into our great great grand fathers, from there, in the same sentence you referenced waiting for England to change their minds.
Now maybe I'm guessing wrong, but I thought you were referencing England trying to take all those muskets from the colonists...you know, the Revolutionary war and all.
Please correct me if I guessed wrong.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Rocaphilla missed the point completely. I know all that, but a gun is a gun is a gun.
Tell me why one society has all the problems and the other does not? The guns are common to both, the crime and violence is not. Just answer why?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

ojo

I can't imagine "how" or "why" my use of "quotation" marks affects "you"! Nor do I really care. Best I can tell you is if it bothers you "that" badly, just don't read my posts!!
Now, if you can produce a "Blog Sheriff" badge and creds (and not the Cracker Jack set!) you just might make a difference! But I doubt it! You've pretty much bliwn your "legitimacy" with me due to your previous "I as a Police Officer..." comment! Impersonating a police officer is pretty serious and awfully petty.
Even just being "cute" or just intimating you "may" be a cop is pretty serious too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

jhjimbo: There are entire books, dissertations, and hundred of academic articles written about that by people who spend their entire lives trying to understand it, and you want an answer in a Field and Stream message board? Get real, dude.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Hoski, Ill break it down nice and simple. And again, this is a hypothetical.

I gave an example of the government banning and confiscating guns. And as you have clearly pointed out in other threads, who cares, we will fix it. Its a democracy. That is why I included saying that the government makes a power grab and denies the voting process. We vote for guns, the government says NO.

Your answer was "I can definitely wait."

I only bring up the Revolutionary War because our Fore Fathers thought exactly the opposite (Thank God!).

When push came to shove, and words and diplomacy failed, they took action. SoIl am not likening the US being under a monarchy. I am showing how idiotic and out of touch your reasoning is. Who cares if my rights are taken away from me! Ill just sit and wait for them to come back. Great reasoning.

1ojolsen, never did I say anyone should go out and kill neighbors and citizens. First of all, like I said before, it was a HYPOTHETICAL POST. And obviously, I am for diplomacy and talking things out. But there will always be a line in the sand between what the government can and can not do. And it takes patriots to voice their concerns and need be, fight for them.

Does any of this make sense to you Liberals or do you think our Founding Fathers were rebelling for no reason, and were terrorists against the King?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

jhjimbo: the answer is because of the lax teaching of personal responsibility, pure and simple. When the government stops arguing about the Dem. and Rep. side of things and starts realizing that their country's problems are the result of a moral decline in the people and start doing something about it, that's when we will start seeing a drop in crime entirely. Also a text has been written for many years that has been proven through many years of practice and use to work every time... The Holy Bible(KJV IMHO).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

OK whitetailfreek, I'll try MY best here.

In your hypothetical, you again reference some big bad wolf, some power unto itself form of govt confiscating firearms...then you go right into admitting that you allegedly understand our form of govt. The first simply cannot happen while the other functions. Period.
Now if you are referencing some Hollywood form of the movie Red Dawn, I suggest practicing separation of fantasy from reality.
My hypothetical at least had the remote possibility of reality by way of the very slim chance that an AWB could happen, note I emphasize remote possibility. Whereas your hypothetical is simply fantasy.
BTW, just for the heck of it, from here out, I'm just going to count how many posts you submit where you don't call someone an idiot...that way the number will stay nice and low.
Oh, and I see I was correct in your analogy of the U.S. to a British colony.
One more little factiod, the Revolutionary war started over taxation without representation. There were plenty of folks who were just fine with an American Monarchy, many wanted George Washington to be crowned King.
Have a great day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Start the count Hoski.

#1 You are an idiot.

Sometimes, I don't know if you just don't understand, or if you deliberately take things out of context, and distort things to try and make yourself seem smarter.

Either way, you are an idiot. #2

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
At least my hypothetical has an outside chance of becoming reality...that's how our system works.
Your hypothetical is pure Hollywood fantasy and has absolutely zero chance of happening.
So what do you want me to say? That I'd dig a hole? Stock a bunker and fight it out after posting my manifesto online?
You looking to see me post that I'd retreat into the hills and conduct hit and run raids on the govt?
Maybe you should lay off the sauce.
BTW, it's not that I seem smarter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhjimbo wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

I am no expert but i think crime and violence started when single women thought they could be a single parent and then about the same time kids got "rights". I believe it takes two to raise a child properly. Sure there are exceptions, but two parents are the ideal family unit. Drugs did not help either. A 7 year nephew going to a nice school in the '70's knew who the drug dealers were.
The violence that comes from hollywood and computer games has added to the fire.
The people who are experts in this and devoted their whole life to crime and violence have not done a very good job of it. IMHO

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Obviously you have a comprehension deficit.
I said I was going to count the number of your posts where you DON'T call someone an idiot to keep the number low.
You're still at zero.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

SF Against "Assault Weapon" Ban

from 1ojolsen wrote 4 days 5 hours ago

Sarge: I did think about that and I do give it credence, "BUT I AS A POLICE OFFICER..." (my emphasis! )

P-H-W and Gary Devine also read your post as claiming you were a LEO!

As far as I'm concerned, adios to ya!
On the other hand, I figure you'll weasel around claiming that "wasn't what I meant"!
Makes no difference, whether you meant it or just intimated it, it is what it is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Bubba read and post it all. This is the first time I went and re-read it and its obvious the I in that sentance is a mistake. I typed it on my phone and the auto feature suggestes the next work and if you space bar twice it adds it. On my phone the auto suggestion for the word "but" is the word "I". However from the context of the rest of the sentence its evident that the I is a mistake. See the full sentence below and take the "I" out.
from 1ojolsen wrote 4 days 5 hours ago
Sarge: I did think about that and I do give it credence, but I as a Police Officer do you see the inner workings, other than enforcement and on the ground judicial? As a soldier (and I know that there are exceptions) are you really on the inside track?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Oh boo hoo! Just what I thought! Can you squirm a little harder?
Now! Adios, muchacho!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Adios

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ableskeever wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Violence began when Cain killed Abel in a field. I hear he used a .223 to get the job done.

The idea that only a government trained person can participate in private ownership of "black guns" goes out the window. The easiest proof is that LAPD officer who started executing people. His personal politics aside, which differ depending on what news station you watch, can we really put that much faith in our government to protect us?

I don't care how much professional training they have, people can still do evil. Any person intent on it will find a way to accomplish it... laws or no laws. Even if magically, every firearm on earth were to disappear, there would still be the same murder rates, just by other means. Kids intent on doing harm to their classmates will find ways of doing so. All it would take is a legal can of gasoline and a legal box of matches. Reality trumps the fantasy of gun control arguments.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

...and I don't think "enhanced background" checks are going to be any magic potion either.
It's all "much ado about nothing."
Political posturing at the expense of victims families!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

There isn't enough tar or feathers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from habben97 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

this armed liberal guy seems like trouble.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

No trouble just another liberal spouting off about the things that he wished he knew something about.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Tarring and feathering sounds good to me, although hot oil and the rack sounds better, or maybe public whipping!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I've written to my representation on several occasions suggesting legislation be created setting a recall policy.
I would hope that after a few examples were made of a few elected officials being publicly humiliated, stripped of their Congressional pensions, fined, and some jail time...we could go back to true civilian representative governance.
I wish more citizens would do the same.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetailfreek wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Hoski, for as much as we disagree this is something we can both agree on.

And thanks for not singling out only Republicans like your new friend armedliberal did. The problem is with politicians on both sides. Actual compromise needs made.

Most conservatives and liberals want the same thing. A strong America where people are working and living life happily. We just disagree on the paths to get there, whether right or wrong. Theory and real world are two different things and that can also be said about both sides.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I don't know if anyone would know where to start to do what you want to do Hoski. From what we see, read and hear, most of them from both sides of the isle are there for their own gain and not for our well being. It always amazes me how "holier than thou" they seem till someone leaks something on them and then they start to beg for forgiveness so they can stay and keep stealing from us, like the guy now who had an illegal working for him who was a convicted felon, and now it comes out that he even has contact with underage prostitutes. Someone like that should be stripped of everything and booted out no questions asked. Neither party has a lock on rightousness.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

whitetailfreek,
Amen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sarge,
I just want to say something about your first sentence, about "not knowing how to get there".
We shouldn't settle for doing nothing, we have to start somewhere.
As this nation sits now, nearly nothing is accomplished...nothing.

Right now, there's a deadline approaching where truly hurtful cutting is virtually guaranteed to happen in a couple weeks. The sequester. This is a disaster that is 100% self inflicted, Congress created this nightmare and where are they today?
In recess!
The whole bunch of em should hide themselves under the handiest rock in shame.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Good God!

AR-15 rifle. It is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Millions have been sold to American citizens since 1963.
-
The AR-15 is the most common example of what are sometimes called assault weapons. But what does this term actually mean?
-
First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn't. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
-
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."
If an assault weapon is not an assault rifle, what is an assault rifle?
-
M4A1 carbine. It is a U.S. military service rifle. It is also an assault rifle.
-
The M4A1 is fully automatic. This means it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.
-
The M4A1 and other fully automatic firearms are also called machine guns. In 1986, the Federal government banned the sale or transfer of new machine guns to civilians.
-
Like the majority of firearms sold in the United States, the AR-15 is semi-automatic. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.
-
The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.
-
So-called assault weapons are not machine guns or assault rifles. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:
-
“What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns. “
-
The truth about assault weapons is that they function like this ranch rifle... shotgun... pistols… double-action revolvers...
-
All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
-
But if that's true, what makes this semi-automatic rifle a ranch gun and semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon?
-
The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:
-
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-
In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.
-
This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the sale of new assault weapons to American civilians.
-
However, since "assault weapon" was an invented term, it had no technical meaning. Before assault weapons could be banned, legislators had to define them.
-
Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.
-
Banned "military-style" features included certain combinations of collapsible stocks, flash hiders and pistol grips, none of which actually made the firearms more lethal.
-
According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimes.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.-
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.
-
The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.
-
To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.
-
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:
-
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
-
When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.
-
In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.
-
Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
-
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
-
Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
-
Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:
-
[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
-
Furthermore, legislators had misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons. In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.
-
At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
-

Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:
-
[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
-
Furthermore, legislators had misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons. In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.
-
At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
-
Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.
-
Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine's capacity was incidental to the amount of death and injury an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone."
-
Although the Virginia Tech massacre was and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, it resulted in relatively few calls for new gun control, possibly because so-called assault weapons were not used.
-
But after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons were widely depicted as military weapons whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people.
-
In reality, so-called assault weapons are commonly used by hunters and competitors.
It has been estimated that at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009. In its ubiquity, the AR-15 is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
-
The AR-15 is particularly favored for its modularity, accuracy, light weight, and low recoil—attributes that make it ideal not only for shooting sports but also armed self-defense.
-
As such, it is the epitome of what America's founders sought to protect when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
-
Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.
-
However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.
-
According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
-
Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.
-
However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.
-
According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
-
Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
-
Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.
-
Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.
-
At the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used a best-selling handgun.
-
Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.
-
Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.
-
At the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used a best-selling handgun.
-
All else being equal, a gun that is common is more likely to be used for legal or illegal purposes than a gun that is rare. Outlawing guns that are popular today will only make different guns popular tomorrow.
-
The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans.
-
Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.
-
Contact your legislators, and tell them the truth about assault weapons.
-
________________________________________
No corporation, lobby, or political action committee had any part in the creation or funding of this educational project. It is solely the work of an individual.
-
www.assaultweapon.info/

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court [contributor]
-
December 22, 2012 By Mitch F. 3 Comments
-
Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.
-
Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.
-
Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The law imposed a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppression devices and other destructive devices.
-
The NFA was challenged before the Supreme Court in 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton had transported a double barrel shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The firearm was not registered nor was there a tax stamp affixed order for the gun as defined by the NFA. The District Court struck down the NFA on Second Amendment grounds. On hearing the case (United States v. Miller) the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and held the NFA to not violate the Second Amendment.
-
The primary reasoning of the Court was that automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons bore no relation to the needs of the common infantryman at the time.
-
From the ruling:
-
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
-
Further, the Court found “that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
-
In subsequent references to Miller (of which there are seven), the Court has repeatedly held this basic principle. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess those guns that would be used by infantryman to defend our freedom.
-
There have been challenges to the nature of the right Miller defined. United States v. Warin and United States v. Oakes are most prominent. The Court’s rulings had painted a picture where the Second Amendment was meaningless. Under the rulings of Miller, Warin and to notes in Oakes, the Court protected neither a right to keep arms for personal defense nor a right to keep arms to be used in a citizen militia. I am hard pressed to understand what exactly the Second Amendment was protecting in the years leading up to 2008.
-
In 2008 the Second Amendment received its first direct review since Miller. District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns for self defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
-
Heller, however, left the question of incorporation open. This was settled two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago when the Court extended the individual right to all citizens of the United States via the Due Process clause. The ruling struck down the Chicago gun ban and cleared the confusion regarding Heller’s application to the states.
-
Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).
-
At the time of Miller, the official primary infantry arm was the United States Rifle, Cal. 30 M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand. This gun had an 8 round magazine and was a gas operated semi-automatic action. That is, for each time the trigger is depressed, one round (shot) is fired. While officially adopted in 1936, it was not fully deployed until 1941. Many soldiers at the time of Miller were still issued the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle. Both of these guns sported barrels in excess of 22″ of length.
-
Today, the modern infantryman is equipped with M4, which is a derivative of the M16/AR-15 line of guns. The M4 is a carbine with an overall length of 33 inches and a barrel length of 14.5 inches. The stock is adjustable for length, it is issued with a 30 round detachable box magazine and a flash hider. The gun has three fire control modes: safe, semi-automatic and 3-round burst. The M4A1 which is issued to certain squads has a different trigger pack: safe, semi-automatic and fully automatic. In addition, in a ten-man squad, you will see two men equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapons System, a light machine gun. General officers, medics, and other non-combat personnel in a combat zone are issued a Beretta M9, a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic handgun for personal defense.
-
If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should. They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban. But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

What part of the 2nd Amendment you just don't understand!

To bad you all missed a meeting with Asa Hutchinson and State representatives today, it was awesome!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

'freek

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!

Homaski would never bobble! He would immediately turn in all arms and tell the "gendarmes" to tell the sheriff, "I ain't gonna vote FOR you next election!". Followed by a nasty letter to his "elected" officials "demanding" they reverse the confiscation order or he won't vote for them either. This will probably be followed by a post on F&S how it's the GOP's fault and Obama is a hero!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from armedliberal wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Plenty of chickens in congress for a feather supply. Right wing chickens.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

Wow. That was enlightening Whitetailfreak. My next question could also be asked by taking the first letters of each word of your user name. WTF?
To the post of the thread... Yes as a democracy we should start encouraging everyone to own assault rifles. That's brilliant. Wouldn't that be a nice world to raise your kids in.
Back to you wtf. Would I kill my fellow citizens, neighbors, etc for the right to own the guns that I am currently using to kill them? It would only come to that in the world that your avatar next to your name lives in (what is that thing anyway?)
Hoski: If you can't see the parallel between more thorough back ground checks for fire arms today and the focal point of the American Revolution then you just are not looking hard enough... yeah right.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply

bmxbiz-fs